| 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.
|
|
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.
|
|
18:33 - 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.
|
|
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.
|
| 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?
- 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)
- 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.
- 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.
- Participate in Peace Rallies and Anti -war campaigns: keeping in mind the shariah injunctions of good character, proper conduct, hijab, peace etc.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?
|
| Thursday, March 20, 2003 |
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.
|
|
11:06 - 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.
|
| 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.
|
| 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.
|
|
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 |
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.
|
| 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.
|
|
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.
|
| 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.
|
| 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 |
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?
|
|
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 everybody's so free to express their dissenting opinions that property owners have no right to protect their own property from them.
The mall cracked under nationwide pressure from people who had no frickin' clue what the incident was actually about. Lovely. I hope Mr. Williams sues the living hell out of them. The mall and the t-shirt dorks.
You want to talk about thought police? I've got your thought police right here.
(Via InstaPundit.)
|
| Friday, March 7, 2003 |
02:36 - The War Room, 2015
http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=peepslayer&itemid=4839#cutid1
|
(top) |
You know, I miss a lot of good stuff by not usually reading much of the reactive takes on current events that occur in people's LiveJournals. And since I have friends who use LJ, I'm starting to get glimpses into the presence of some real gems that deserve commemoration.
Like this one: Dark Age of Camelot arms for war on Iraq.
France: Hey all, what's up? US: Putting together an RvR raid, hitting Iraq. France: No frikking way, dood. Look, I'm part of Alliance leadership, and I say no way do we go in there. I'm using Alliance veto. US: WTF? Alliance Veto? France: Yeah, it's in Alliance charter. Me, Germany, US, Russia, and China can all cancel any Alliance raid event. Bulgaria: Hey, me and the other Eastern Europeans wanna go... France: STFU, n00b. Your guild got no say in this. Bulgaria: ,,!,, Germany: I don't really want to go either. US: ... France: Yeah, we veto. No guildies go to Iraq. US: What about you, Russia. Russia: Well, if everyone else goes, it's ok, but if France and Germany say no, then that's cool. US: Jeezus. Dood, show some balls. You used to love going on raids. Russia: Yeah, but that Afghanistan raid a while back was a disaster. Total group wipe-out. US: Yeah, but you were in different alliance, man. This is different. Besides, we pwn3d last time we went on Iraq raid. France: Doesn't matter. I say no.
It takes a bit of proficiency in MMORPG vocabulary (I had to have an interpreter handy), but it's worth it.
|
|
13:33 - Fascinating
|
(top) |
I'm sure this is not at all representative of what true Islamic thought has to say on this subject, but... well, considering the lack of counterargument that I've seen on the Ar-Rahman list, it stands to reason that it's accepted wisdom for some people.
being a woman of islam, ill answer q's 2,3 and 4. i am not sure about q1.
2) Why is a woman's testimony only worth half a man's?
this is true because women tend to work more from emotions. they have a softer heart and relent to temptation faster.
3) How come Islam allows men to beat their wives?
Islam doesnt allow men to beat wives just for fun. a man can not hit me unless ive gone against the path of Allah or adultery. Even then he can not hit me right away. there are steps leading upto it. first he tells me its wrong. then he separates his bed. and if even then i dont listen, he can hit me with a miswak (wooden stick used to cleanse teeth) no longer than his thumb.
this intends to attain two things... 1) if the woman has any haya in her, she'd stop by the time the man separates the bed. if not, she really s evil.
2) the length of the miswak... the length of a thumb... it can never hurt u. the intention is to reprimand not to injure.
also remember to judge a religion by its scripture not its people. what muslims do today is not what they are taught... just as christians or jews or believers of any other faith. just becoz a person does something doesnt mean the whole faith does it.
q4... the lashing... and stoning... im still not sure about this and i know there are conditions that apply. i had it in a book which i cant place right now.
however... even if the conditions are same... lets remember that a woman is built less inclined towards sex than man. it is tougher for her to succumb to temptation. also, by her indulging in fornication, she puts her lineage into threat. especially if she's maried and i think stoning is for married women only. it is also a way for men and woen to be punished in this world rather than facing it in the hereafter... which would be a tougher and more brutal punishment.
salamoalaikum... all errs are mine and mine alone... Allah is free of All errs.
Well, I'm glad that's cleared up.
|
|
11:56 - Watching the Worms Squirm
http://www.instapundit.com/archives/007997.php#007997
|
(top) |
Well, well. If this turns out to be true, someone ought to offer Den Beste a position as a White House advisor.
A French company has been selling spare parts to Iraq for its fighter jets and military helicopters during the past several months, according to U.S. intelligence officials.
The unidentified company sold the parts to a trading company in the United Arab Emirates, which then shipped the parts through a third country into Iraq by truck.
The spare parts included goods for Iraq's French-made Mirage F-1 jets and Gazelle attack helicopters. . . .
Granted, it's possible (I suppose) that the French company might not even have known it was selling to Iraq-- maybe it only thought it was dealing with the Al Tamoor Trading Company, and never suspected the parts were headed illicitly for Iraq. Maybe this is all just a big misunderstanding.
But somehow I'm inclined to call Occam's Razor, at least on the data we have so far.
|
| Thursday, March 6, 2003 |
01:08 - Ya have to be so... critical?
http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-edt-ebert05.html
|
(top) |
A reader sends this surprising editorial: a rant on public-school prayer and the "Under God" clause in the Pledge of Allegiance, from... Roger Ebert.
We started every day with classroom prayer at St. Mary's School, of course, but Sister Rosanne said there was a difference between voluntary prayer in a private religious school and prayer in a school paid for by every taxpayer--a distinction so obvious that Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft are forced to willfully ignore it.
. . .
This is really an argument between two kinds of prayer--vertical and horizontal. I don't have the slightest problem with vertical prayer. It is horizontal prayer that frightens me. Vertical prayer is private, directed upward toward heaven. It need not be spoken aloud, because God is a spirit and has no ears. Horizontal prayer must always be audible, because its purpose is not to be heard by God, but to be heard by fellow men standing within earshot.
. . .
This simple insight about two kinds of prayer, which is beyond theological question, should bring a dead halt to the obsession with prayer in public places. It doesn't, because the purpose of its supporters is political, not spiritual. Their faith is like Dial soap: Now that they use it, they wish everyone would. I grew up in an America where people of good breeding did not impose their religious convictions upon those they did not know very well. Now those manners have been discarded.
Not bad. The guy seems to have his head screwed on straight. I don't normally pay attention to his movie reviews; but on other matters I might want to keep an ear out for more like this.
|
| Wednesday, March 5, 2003 |
12:29 - The Spandex no longer flatters
|
(top) |
I just finished reading The Watchmen. I'd given some early impressions last Monday, but it's taken me until now to get all the way through it. Late nights. Bah.
Anyway-- multiple people mailed me to tell me that I should register my final thoughts on it after I finished it, and now I see why. I have to give away the ending in order to comment on it: Ozymandias, the playboy-superhero-turned-messianic-supergenius decides to save the 1985 Nixonian world portrayed in the book from certain nuclear annihilation, via an ingenious plan to-- to... eliminate all the superheroes (er, masked adventurers) capable of stopping him, and then to conjure up a gigantic, city-sized alien life form which he would teleport to New York City, upon which it would die, its brain in its death-throes broadcasting chaotic imagery throughout the city, causing three million citizens to go insane and die in the cataclysm.
...Upon which, the aggressive Soviets would halt their march through Afghanistan, draw back their weaponry, disarm, and enter into a sympathetic accord with the thunderstruck America. Leading to a new world order of peace and prosperity, Soviet and American harmony.
All I can say is: Osamandias didn't quite get it right, did he?
As I said before, The Watchmen is a fascinating time-capsule of a piece, set in a pre-fall-of-communism world in which the writers (how come the best comic writers are all British?) couldn't seem to find plausible the peaceful end to the Cold War. (Odd how exactly that happened not four years after the book's publication.) It's full of the political vocabulary of the times, back when conservatives were the conspiracy-theorists and the word "lesbian" hadn't really entered common discourse. The book is written from a complex perspective, portraying the many-term President Nixon as a gruff but sympathetic figure, and ascribing to his heroes-- Nite Owl, Rorschach, Sally and Laurie Jupiter, and Doc Manhattan-- a decidedly black-and-white, good-and-evil outlook, while at the same time giving them all the humanity-- while placing Ozymandias at the bohemian Left, remaking the world in his postmodern image, secure in the perfection of his intricate plans. The "happy ending" the book gets is one in which the bad guy wins, and the world is safe and peaceful-- at least until someone figures out the truth.
The politics of the book are neatly summed up in the internal basement rag The New Frontiersman, which is both a parody of conservative thinking (1980s-style) and a validation of it. An excerpt from it toward the end, while it espouses a completely reasonable and well-intentioned rebuttal to fabricated accusations leveled by a rival leftist magazine (a proto-Fisking!), and seems to be founded on solid principles to which it adheres fanatically, it nonetheless betrays the writer and editor of the magazine as a classic Red-fearing conspiracy-monger, pointing fingers everywhere and demonizing blacks and Jews and the like, while saying things like "Might I point out that despite what some might view as their later excesses, the Klan originally came into being because decent people had perfectly reasonable fears for the safety of their persons and belongings when forced into proximity with people from a culture far less morally advanced." A synthetic political cartoon, in the lost old 40s style, shows a square-jawed American superhero in a boxing ring menaced by towering caricatures of Big Biz (complete with Star of David), Juvenile Delinquency, Pop Culture, Hippies, and Crime, while John Q. Public dozes and Lady Liberty weeps.
And here we are in 2003, where the conservatives are pro-Israel, pro-black, pro-gay, pro-end-of-War-on-Drugs, pro-miscegenation, play mean electric guitars, and get up in arms over the suppression of ideas opposite their own.
As to the storytelling itself-- it's quaint, I must say. I'm sure it must have been revolutionary in its time, being as it was the forerunner of all of today's accustomed Vertigo titles, the first of the genre of edgy adult comics. And it's extremely well-written. But I find myself grating a little at the forced cleverness of the writer, juxtaposing the storylines of the main plot and an unrelated pirate/horror story throughout common panels just to drive home the irony and magnitude of the characters' lines and the scenes they're in. Each episode ends with a literary excerpt from some in-story text or other, further fleshing out the realism of the gritty New York setting and providing character context. Now, while this is all extremely clever, and in 1986 it must have seemed ingenious, from today's perspective-- where storytelling of this type has matured a bit-- it looks pretentious. I suppose I can't fault it for that, but I did find myself going, "Yeah, yeah" once or twice as I saw the castaway on his corpse raft reappear next to the newsstand owner's dialogue, or Doc Manhattan's time-shifted lines pull themselves together from the far corners of the scene and resolve into a coherent internally-consistent narrative. Yes, you're very smart. Now shut up.
But that said, it's an outstanding piece, superbly written; I called it "prescient" last week, but until I got to the end I didn't realize just how prescient it was. I have to wonder how the writers feel about current events, and how they would have written The Watchmen in 2003 or even in 1996. This world really has changed a lot lately, hasn't it?
|
| Tuesday, March 4, 2003 |
00:45 - Candy Bars Make You Illiterate
|
(top) |
Nestlé has a new candy bar with an ad campaign whose architect I want to punch. It's a chocolate confection that, according to the youthful-sounding announcer, is infused with a substance called "carmel".
I don't know what this "carmel" stuff is, but from the look of it it bears a striking resemblance to caramel-- same color, same thick sticky consistency. One might be forgiven for thinking they might be the same thing.
Subtext: I cannot stand the mispronunciation of "caramel". Ever since my early youth it's driven me up the wall. (Likewise with hapless tour guides at candy factories unlucky enough to have me visit.)
What's worse, though, is that one of the ads in this campaign actually plays on this mispronunciation tendency-- and while giving lip service to the fact that these multiple pronunciations of the word "caramel" exist, it concludes with the same announcer referring to the stuff as carmel.
To wit: two guys are sitting on some steps in front of a city apartment block, eating one of these candy bars. The one guy, who can read, calls it caramel. He's fairly adamant about it, too; but his compatriot, seemingly oblivious to the repetition of the letter A in the word, or to the evidence presented in any reliable online dictionary, or to the etymological information to be found therein (calamellus mellitus, or sugar cane), persists in calling it carmel. He even pummels his buddy over the head for insisting upon the three-syllable variant, right before handing over control of the meme to his disembodied announcer friend.
Let's review, then:
- Caramel is a "burnt-sugar" confectionary material frequently used in candy bars.
- Carmel is a town on the California coast frequented by tourists.
Got that, Nestléee?
|
|
00:34 - Blessed are the Paecemakers
http://www.rightwingnews.com/humor/save.php
|
(top) |
Wow. I don't know what to make of this one either. Too funny to be real, too good to be fake. I have no other basis than its own face value upon which to guess as to its legitimacy, but-- either way, it's damned entertaining.
Doug: THE USA TRY TO ENTER HEAR FOR OUR WATER. WE DONT WANTH AMERICANS HERE!! I AM A BRAZILAN RESERVE SOLDIER AND I WIL FIGHT IS ANY AMREICAN ENTER ON MY COUNTRY!
HolyWarrior: I used to say that sort of thing too before the Gulf War -- then next thing you know, they show up with their planes, tanks, deathrays, robot monkeys, deathstars, all sorts of stuff and you say forget about it -- might as well watch "Baywatch" and chant USA USA!
Doug: i understand.... the americans is the modern rome!!
If only the Romans'd had ICQ.
|
|
17:27 - First they came for the pigs...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2818809.stm
|
(top) |
I try to be understanding of these things; I really do.
But it just rises, unbidden, from the depths of my stomach, and bursts forth from my lips before I have a chance to curb it or quell it:
Fuck you!
A West Yorkshire head teacher has banned books containing stories about pigs from the classroom in case they offend Muslim children.
. . .
Mrs Harris said in a statement: "Recently I have been aware of an occasion where young Muslim children in class were read stories about pigs.
"We try to be sensitive to the fact that for Muslims talk of pigs is offensive."
The head teacher sent a memo to staff saying fiction books containing stories about pigs should be removed from early years and key stage one classrooms.
Mrs Harris added: "The books remain in the school library and there is nothing to stop our younger children having stories such as 'The Three Little Pigs' in small groups."
Next to go will be The Lion King, because it has a warthog in it. Mark my words. (It's always been banned in places like Saudi Arabia, and that's fine with me. But France, and now England, will be hopping on the Do Not Offend bandwagon.) And that's to say nothing of Charlotte's Web.
And after that, dogs. Dogs are unclean in Islam too, aren't they? So long, Old Yeller. Bye bye, Poky Little Puppy. Ain't gonna be no more Red Fern growing in the hearts of these kids, even though up till now it's been a part of (gasp!) Western Culture. Which, of course, must always defer to the vastly superior (or at least more dangerous to ignore) culture that non-Western immigrants bring with them.
How ever do you suppose it was that Jewish populations managed to reconcile the need to keep Kosher with a prevailing culture that likes to eat pork and cheeseburgers? What about vegetarian Hindus in a land dotted with aromatic Outback Steakhouses? Hell, I've even stopped complaining about smokers out of a respect for coexistence and a willingness to accept a bit of discomfort and inconvenience for the sake of greater overall happiness. I'd thought the big modern moral lesson we'd all learned was that tolerance is a two-way street. So whence this steadfast refusal to adapt, and this terrified ideological cowering? Has 9/11 created the double standard of the century?
C'mon, England. Time to show some backbone. Just because you are hobbled by cultural hypersensitivity doesn't mean you have to bend over backwards to appease people who aren't.
(Via Sullivan.)
UPDATE: The school's decision has come as a surprise to local Muslims, as Aziz forwards me:
Inayat Bunglawala, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said, "This is bizarre. There is nothing to stop children reading about pigs. The ban is simply on the consumption of pork and pig products." ... Trying not to be too harsh in the face of a rare sensitivity to Muslims, the Muslim Council of Britain asked the school district to quietly repeal the edict. Continued Bunglawala, "There can be a cultural misunderstanding and it is good for everyone to discuss it and clear it up."
Well, good. I certainly hope Mrs. Harris takes them up on that offer.
|
|
16:06 - Mind the Gap
http://www.nwc.navy.mil/newrulesets/ThePentagonsNewMap.htm
|
(top) |
Via LGF-- here's a perspective from Thomas P.M. Barnett of the US Naval War College, which appeared in this month's Esquire. It's billed as "The Pentagon's new Map of the World". Very frank and to-the-point. I don't know how "authoritative" it is, but it certainly seems to be the closest thing to the horse's mouth that I've seen when it comes to the Long View on where the WoT is taking us.
IF WE STEP BACK for a minute and consider the broader implications of this new global map, then U.S. national-security strategy would seem to be: 1) Increase the Core's immune system capabilities for responding to September 11-like system perturbations; 2) Work the seam states to firewall the Core from the Gap's worst exports, such as terror, drugs, and pandemics; and, most important, 3) Shrink the Gap. Notice I did not just say Mind the Gap. The knee-jerk reaction of many Americans to September 11 is to say, "Let's get off our dependency on foreign oil, and then we won't have to deal with those people." The most naďve assumption underlying that dream is that reducing what little connectivity the Gap has with the Core will render it less dangerous to us over the long haul. Turning the Middle East into Central Africa will not build a better world for my kids. We cannot simply will those people away.
Indeed. If it's a choice between America's seceding from the world so we don't offend (or assist) any other country, and rolling up our sleeves for a long and extraordinarily ambitious-- but potentially world-altering-for-the-better-- reconstruction project, I'm on board for the latter.
Nice maps, too.
|
| Monday, March 3, 2003 |
17:15 - When Symbols Attack
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030303-104.htm
|
(top) |
I must say, I'm having a hard time absorbing this one. I'm not (yet) prepared to believe that the terrorists are this disconnected from reality (and/or this stupid).
Terrorists linked to al Qaeda have targeted U.S. military facilities in Pearl Harbor, including nuclear-powered submarines and ships, The Washington Times has learned.
According to officials familiar with the reports, al Qaeda is planning an attack on Pearl Harbor because of its symbolic value and because its military facilities are open from the air.
The attacks would be carried out by hijacked airliners from nearby Honolulu International Airport that would be flown into submarines or ships docked at Pearl Harbor in suicide missions, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Because of its symbolic value?
Look, guys: if you're going to pick a target for its symbolic value, you bomb the Super Bowl. You bomb Times Square at New Year's. You gas an airport on the Fourth of July.
You don't recreate an event which steeled the entire US for implacable battle against those who attacked it.
What are they thinking? If this report is for real, it means either that a) al Qaeda really doesn't have a damned clue what this country does when it's attacked, even after Afghanistan; or b) they're ingeniously actively working to redefine this war on their own terms, making all sides think of it as a Holy WarTM with all its thirteenth-century trappings-- perhaps knowing full well that their civilizations are doomed as they know it, and they'd rather go out under a nuke and jet straight to Paradise as martyrs, than win. Maybe they've decided that this world is irreparable, that salvation for earth's people is impossible, that American hegemony is impossible to fight-- and so "winning" by hobbling America is really concession to America's vision of the world, and the only way to really win is to die in the service of Allah.
The fact that the latter possibility seems the more plausible to me really screws with my head.
Well, then, bring it on, Chinpokomon Toy Company. Try to bomb da Hahbah. We'll be happy to oblige.
|
| Sunday, March 2, 2003 |
01:22 - Just wondering...
http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/03/Avictoryintheshadowwar.shtml
|
(top) |
... Aren't devout Muslims supposed to wear full beards?
I'm just sayin', is all.
UPDATE: Marko notes: "Nevermind that, I'm just freaked that Ron Jeremy is the Al Qaeda mastermind!"
|
|
00:17 - Dilemmas
|
(top) |
On the way home from the dog show near Fresno, I saw a line of windmills on the ridge of hills lining the pass traversed by Highway 152 from the Central Valley over to Gilroy. A few of the mills were turning lazily, but not many appeared to be doing much good.
And it reminded me: one thing about the modern "liberal" mindset that must be really galling for those who espouse it is that so many of the morally pure, honest liberal causes so frequently clash directly with other morally pure, honest liberal causes. When this happens, you've got two crusades at odds with each other, both of which spring from the same political genesis, with the other side of the traditional political spectrum left scratching its head outside the loop.
Like, for instance, wind power. A group will lobby to get windmills installed on every ridgetop in the Coastal Ranges in the Bay Area region. It's unclear whether these windmills will ever produce anywhere near enough energy to even register on the grid, but that's beside the point: it's free, clean, safe energy, and that's all that really matters.
Except that it kills birds. If I recall correctly, there's a major problem with power-generating windmills, in that birds (endangered ones in particular, it wouldn't surprise me) seem to fly into the whirling blades with astonishing frequency, getting scimitarred out of the sky with deadly efficiency. And so the liberal animal-rights groups spring up, ready to do battle-- with the liberal clean-energy force that got wind power instituted in the first place. Their enemies are their own ideological compatriots. Who will win? In either case, is it a victory or a defeat for liberal values?
The same goes for the flap a year or two ago over the sale of live turtles in shops in Chinatown in San Francisco. Traditional Chinese food stores would sell turtles to customers by hacking off the shells while the turtles were still alive. Cruel, perhaps, but it's the traditional Chinese way of doing things. It's culture, dammit-- and non-American culture to boot, which makes it worthy of protection in its most pristine form, and defense against the corrupting and miscegenating influence of American life. We can't have that, no sir.
... Except when it's animal rights we're talking about, in which case all bets are presumably off. Which liberal cause wins? Multiculturalism or animal rights? Which side should a good liberal choose?
I keep noticing these little dichotomies, and I wonder whether there's a corresponding kind of tendency on the conservative side-- I can't think of one offhand, but there must be something. If we accept the structural symmetry of left- and right-wing politics, there have got to be analogs on both sides, including these kinds of second-order phenomena. Conservative causes must clash from time to time-- business freedom versus parochialism, for instance, or patriotic fundamentalism versus government non-intrusiveness in private matters, or something. I'm sure these causes can be fit together in ways that develop the same sorts of schisms. I'm sure it happens every day.
But for some reason, it's the do-gooding leftist causes that seem to really invite disbelief and ridicule when they collide.
|
|
23:46 - It's funniest late at night
|
(top) |
Van and I were just wrapping up an evening while listening to the History Channel in the next room talking about the Jesuit priests and their role as the "stormtroopers of the Counter-Reformation". It said that the Jesuits led lives that obeyed the three classical virtues: poverty, chastity, and obedience.
But we both heard it the same way, and repeated it uproariously back to each other simultaneously: Poverty, chastity, and obesity.
Boy, now, wouldn't that have made history more interesting. I'm sorry, I can't-- I've taken a vow of obesity!
|
| Saturday, March 1, 2003 |
22:04 - Light Blogging
|
(top) |
Yeah, it's another of those "Sorry I haven't written anything for the past couple of days" posts. And I'm afraid it's not going to get much better anytime in the very near future, either-- this weekend I'm not spending a whole helluva lot of time at home. Good for my sanity, bad for blog. That's life, I guess.
Friday I spent largely in re-coding the image approval system for the Fan-Art Archive, so that now the "holding area" is a lot more tolerant of me stepping out of my duty for several days-- uploaded files have guaranteed unique filenames now, instead of the not-really-unique-but-close-enough scheme that cgi-lib uses (plus my half-assed extension to it that tries to avoid collisions). Now the info goes into an actual database table, too, instead of flat info files, so once again we're closer to sanity. Still not there yet, but every little bit helps.
And I also spent the day thinking that well, y'know, we've just about got to the point where it's all been said. The troops are in place; war is a go/no-go decision and a phone call away, and everybody has said his or her piece. Everybody's opinions are known. From protesters to bloggers to heads of state, everybody's staked their claim to a particular piece of the moral riverbank, every conceivable opinion has been registered and rebutted and counterargued, and all that remains now is to fight or not fight.
We've heard "Let's Roll" and its equivalent from Den Beste and Lileks and Reynolds and many others. The new moon is upon us. There's word of another big attack being planned for somewhere in Asia (probably Afghanistan, but you never know), to coincide with the Iraq invasion, and we've all braced for impact. We've stocked up our survival pantries. We've passed around essays explaining why not to panic in the event of an attack of any sort from chemical or biological all the way on up to a nuke. The initial cold pit-of-the-stomach dread has given way, at least among my friends and associates and myself, to a kind of grim que será, será. Bring it on. And for the love of God, let's get it over with.
Anyway-- that's a major part of why I haven't felt much like writing lately. I'm mostly just holding my breath-- doing my best to enjoy a nice pleasant day like today, exploring the southern end of Almaden Expressway and Camden Avenue with my parents, having some great Teppan food cooked by a Benihana alum, and puttering about with plans for the new house and how the landscaping will work and where we can go for walks once we've moved and how to wire the TV cable. I find myself wanting to smirk wryly at how ".Hack" is an MMORPG in which you play an MMORPG-- isn't that like taking a drug which makes you hallucinate about taking drugs?-- than to speculate about whether we'll be at war in 24 hours or 48. It seems futile now. We've all spoken. The powers that be have heard everybody's voices and weighed them against their own data, and it's their decision to make now. It's out of our hands.
So tomorrow I'll be getting up early to head over to Fresno with Lance; it'll be for a dog show, not for a lame excuse to get out of the Bay Area during a tense time or anything. I'm going to get up at 7:00 AM because it'll be a distraction, something I'm all too grateful for this weekend.
UPDATE: Yes, yes, I know .Hack is actually an RPG about playing an MMORPG. But c'mon, it was funnier my way.
|
| Thursday, February 27, 2003 |
20:17 - Raed it and weep
http://www.dear_raed.blogspot.com/2003_02_01_dear_raed_archive.html#89502772
|
(top) |
Raed has the inside scoop on just how grateful the Iraqi man-on-the-street is to have those Western "Human Shields" running around:
One of the latest group to arrive in Baghdad, mostly Europeans, were welcomed to the Rasheed hotel , which is like the Waldorf Astoria of Baghdad, no other hotel is more expensive and exclusive. All of them were wearing T-shirts with what was supposed to be "Human Shields" in Arabic, but they had it all wrong it said "Adra'a Basharia" instead of "Duru'u Basharia" which got them a few giggles and a new name; they are now the "Adra'a" just to show how clueless they are. A lot of funny Arabic these days with all these HS's running around, a van with a foreign number plate standing near the ministry of information has "No War" written all over it in many languages the biggest in Arabic. All over the front of it is says "La Harba" which is wrong and sounds like a night club, my cousin thought that was cute. Anyway, what really got my goat this time was finding out that they get food coupons worth 15,000 dinars per meal, 3 for every day.fifteen thousan. Do you know how much the monthly food ration for a 4 person family is worth, for a whole month not per meal (real cost, not subsidized) ? 30,000 dinars, if you get someone to buy the bad rice they give you for a decent price. 15,000. What are they eating? A whole lamb every meal? Let's put this within context. Today in the morning Raed, our friend G. and I went for a late big breakfast we had 2 tishreeb bagilas (can't explain that, you have to be an Iraqi to get it otherwise it sounds inedible) and a makhlama (which is an omelet with minced meat), tea, fizzy drinks and argila afterwards (the water-pipe-thingy) all for 4,750 dinars, and we were not going super cheap. A lunch in any above-average restaurant will not be more than 8,000 dinars and that includes everything. 15,000 thousand is a meal in a super expensive restaurant in Arasat Street, in one of those places that really almost have an "only foreigners allowed, no Iraqis welcome unless you are UN staff" sign on it. I will stop calling them tourist when they stop taking all this pampering from the Iraqi government. Did I tell you about the tours? Today was Babylon day. You are really missing it, the cheapest way to do the Iraq trip you have wanted to do but were too scared.
I love it. I wonder how these guys like wearing what amounts to Engrish t-shirts -- 100% Boys For Cotton Atlas! I just wish Raed had explained what "Adra'a Basharia" actually translates to.
Also make sure to check out his photos of Baghdad. I wonder how many of us have any idea what it actually looks like?
UPDATE: A reader points out that in this story, this line appears: "She was named al-Adra'a because Fatima never lost her virginity." So does "Adra'a Basharia" mean "Human Virgins", or what?
|
|
09:21 - Cologne
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/news/021215colon.html
|
(top) |
I don't have a word to say about this.
Seriously. I can't think of thing one.
UPDATE: J Greely does, however: "Worst first date ever!"
|
| Wednesday, February 26, 2003 |
17:26 - Well, okay then...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/02/26/wtc.finalist.ap/index.html
|
(top) |
So this is the new World Trade Center.
Libeskind's design beat the THINK team's "World Cultural Center" plan, which envisioned two 1,665-foot latticework towers straddling the footprints of the original towers.
The new building is planned to be taller than the trade center towers, which briefly stood as the world's tallest at 1,350 feet. Libeskind's tower also would surpass Malaysia's 1,483-foot Petronas Twin Towers, the tallest buildings in the world.
I guess it could be worse. And for what it's worth, I think I could get to like this-- at least, more so than the THINK Team's nightmarish "Skeletons in the Sky" vision.
As I've said before, I would have much preferred something big, substantial, eye-popping-- a new masthead for the nation. Maybe not something as brash as WTC2002, but something along those lines.
But they seem to have gone for something jaggy and wispy, ghostly and fragmented, like a broken window or a collapsed volcano. I mean, yes, it's tall-- at least, that one spire is. But I have to wonder just what the inspiration was for this kind of design.
I hope it's not just that this would be harder to hit with a plane.
|
|
14:34 - Gee, mister, you're a hero
|
(top) |
On a mailing list I'm on, one of the members posted a question inquiring whether being gay made one ineligible for the draft.
A number of people replied, most with valuable and interesting information regarding the nature of the draft, the "don't-ask-don't-tell" policy, and how the various aspects of both could and could not interrelate.
Then the original poster responded:
wow, didnt expect such lengthy replies, thanks to all who did reply. its very valuable to know. i know that if the draft ever does come back they wont take me for various reasons, mainly because id disable myself before i go out and slaughter ppl because the gov says so.
Wow, how brave and selfless of you.
Fortunately for you, there are many people (some of which are on this very list) who are willing to take those bullets for you.
(I didn't want to air this on this list itself, but I had to get it out somewhere.)
I mean, look-- I'm no fan of war, and I don't look with longing at the lines of marching-and-heiling soldiers anonymously striding off to their state-ordered deaths in 1940s Europe. It's not my ambition to go out and take human lives purely on the say-so of a government that may or may not have my best interests at heart.
But there's conscientious objection, and then there's deliberately walling yourself off from reality. In another time, I might have been a peacenik taking whatever measure I thought necessary to avoid being sent to the front lines in Vietnam. But how determined are these people to prove to themselves that 9/11 changed nothing, that the world not only isn't fundamentally a different place, it's more the same now than ever?
I'm starting to think that 9/11 took a gouge so deep into America's collective psyche that we as a people are desperately avoiding having to look our ideological enemy in the face-- and in so doing, we deny that it exists. It's such a huge elephant-in-the-living-room that we're puttering around in the kitchen or the garage, fussing over dinner or the car, rather than even having to silently make room for the pachyderm on the couch.
There's a big task ahead of us; we've known this ever since we saw that smoke plume on CNN, but we've buried it. And now we're so intent upon keeping it buried, so we don't have to face up to it, that we're willing to take to the streets in jaw-dropping numbers and with next to zero provocation, especially compared to what was going on in, say, 1973. I mean, let's have a little perspective here. No Americans are being drafted. Our armed forces are entirely comprised of people who volunteered. Our enemy is a real, live bad guy, the world agrees from pole to pole. We are an aggrieved party, having suffered a dire attack, and the perpetrators remain at large with sources of funding and potential sources of weaponry still intact. This isn't some nebulous far-off political stunt, conscripting unwilling American youths in order to fight a proxy of a far-off "Red" menace that most of the country has stopped believing is a threat anyway. It's real this time, and it's right here. It's in our backyard. And yet we have Hollywood stars lining up to be human shields at Iraqi military targets?
How did the country that built its entire modern identity upon its victory over the Nazis ever get to this stage?
People think they're too worldly and well-informed to allow such a thing as war to happen. It's the Age of the Internet, isn't it? We've all got e-mail friends in Germany and Slovenia and China, right? Wouldn't want to do anything to piss them off! After all, they're the ones who know what's best for the world-- just look at where those infomercials all say our kitchen appliances and our exercise equipment and our body-hair-removal products and our micro-coil wood-slat mattress sleep systems come from! New from Europe! And Australia! And everywhere but here!
(Never mind that in Europe, the infomercials all say "New from America!")
It's hip to denigrate your own country, no matter where you're from. Just last night, over late-night sandwiches bought for us by our manager as we worked deep into the evening, Chris mentioned the various kinds of specialty mustards he had back at home in Oz-- and he said, with considerable embarrassment, that the kind he liked best was called Australian.
Embarrassment. At speaking the name of your own country with pride in public. Believe you me, I'm quite familiar with that state of mind.
Because that's the state to which we've gotten. The successful Western nations are so self-conscious about having succeeded that they choose self-denigration rather than risk even being accused of jingoistic patriotism. "Patriotism" itself was a mildly dirty word before 9/11; it enjoyed a resurgence in the aftermath, but now we're back to encouraging tourists in France to put red maple-leaf logos on their luggage so as to avoid being spat upon in restaurants. "Patriotism is the belief that your country is superior because you happened to have been born there," one's European pen-pals sneer. And because it's wryly ironic, it must be true.
It's this same oversensitivity that leads us to accuse ourselves of Naziism for the heinous crime of waving a flag. To be a Nazi, you see, you no longer have to round up a hated minority and gas them; you no longer have to seize dictatorial power; you no longer have to burn books, censor the press, create propaganda, or imperialistically invade one's neighbor nations. All you have to do to be a Nazi is support your country. And-- shucky darn-- all you have to do in order to fight those home-grown Nazis is invent rendingly insightful parallels to demonstrate how the country is doing all those things. Hated minority? Arabs! We're torching mosques and gassing any American named Mohammed, aren't we? Sure we are. Dictatorial power? Hey, Bush wasn't even properly elected-- he seized power, and so did all those Senators last year! Censorship and propaganda? Well, hey, CNN is working from a script, and what do you think those "Army of One" ads are all about? Let's not forget those glamorous pro-war enlistment solicitations like Three Kings and Black Hawk Down. Imperialistic invasions? Do we even need to point this one out?
The first time you hear these things, even a high-schooler who spends History class peering down the neckline of the girl in front of him can identify the crucial distinctions. But the fiftieth or hundredth or ten thousandth time, the memes are too well sown throughout the public discourse for one to argue against them. Not while maintaining any hope of making headway.
We've just gotten too sophisticated for our own good. Too soaked in history and steeped in irony to take anything at face value anymore. It's all about context now, all about cute parallels and eloquent interpretation and historical-situations-with-names-insightfully-substituted. It's the age where a four-word slogan can beat a thousand-word essay in sincerity.
Because sincerity is dead.
UPDATE: Actually Chris tells me that the deal with the "Australian" mustard was that the company had created a more-or-less synthetic blend that it thought would appeal to the "Australian" palate. And much to his chagrin, he liked it. He's embarrassed that after all his talk of his Third Rule-- I am not the target audience-- he actually turned out to be the target audience.
Fie! Fie upon the mainstream!
|
|
09:43 - In Defense of Cowboys
|
(top) |
The more I hear the word "cowboy" bandied around as though it's an insult, the greater becomes my compulsion to re-read the end of the Preacher series. And I tell you, these three pages-- just a few from the end, right after Jesse has finished securing justice against a double-crossing friend, killing all the bad guys, destroying a corrupt and conniving God, and winning back the love of his life-- they're looking better and better these days.
The first time I read this, I thought it was a cheap and juvenile sort of ending-- about as trite and naked as... well, as a Vertigo comic with a main character whose initials are "J.C." But on subsequent rereadings, particularly recently, it's clearer to me that it couldn't have ended any other way.
And might I add that the script is penned by Garth Ennis, an Irish fellow, whose extensive work carries a common thread of undiluted love for America-- exemplified in Preacher by his deep affection for the cowboy romance and what it really means, but in other books realized in other ways. His Superman story in Hitman must be seen to be believed, particularly now-- as the storyline revolved around a Space Shuttle accident.
An unlikely place to find an oracle, I know, but these are unusual times, are they not?
Some across the Atlantic (and here at home) misunderstand the point of America so badly as to threaten national alliances that have stood for centuries; however, it's also true that we can look to those outside our borders to appreciate what we have and what we are a lot more deeply than we ourselves do. Some people do get it.
|
| Monday, February 24, 2003 |
14:42 - A tremendous EXPLOSION... in timber prices
|
(top) |
You know-- it occurs to me, all of a sudden, that people in the Midwest are doubly lucky.
For one thing, they're not in a high terrorism risk zone to begin with.
And for another, they get thunderstorms. Like on a regular basis.
So when the air lights up outside in a BLINDING FLASH, followed almost immediately by a TEN-SECOND-LONG BOOMING CRACKLING CATACLYSM, they don't immediately wonder whether someone snuck a tactical-nuke into the Port of Oakland in a shipping container.
Sheesh. The numbing niceness of the weather around here has its downside.
|
|
11:53 - The more things change
|
(top) |
Zjonni brought over a compilation trade-paperback of The Watchmen over the weekend; I'm about a third of the way into it, and it's turning out to be a fascinating period piece, quite unexpectedly. Written in 1986, gritty in its graphic Blade Runner alleyway dimness, but still evoking the 1950s with the curious pulp-comic primary colors of hair and clothes and cars and skin (since then replaced by the Vertigo comics' more subtle and mood-altering realistic earth-tones), it's a time-capsule from the days when we still worried about the Reds while snickering knowingly about McCarthyism. With characters like Rorschach, Dr. Manhattan, Nite Owl, and the Comedian-- none of whom I'd heard of before-- it's thus far a dismal and depressing tale of the death of a society's innocence and self-confidence, terrified and intimidated by superheroes rather than comforted by them. It's prescient in a way; how long would a radioactive super-being last today without attracting a class-action lawsuit from all his past sexual partners for giving them all cancer?
Anyway, one facet of the story is a strong undercurrent of liberal-vs-conservative banter between the heroes-- the kind of thing they seemed to talk about in the 80s, but which became deeply unfashionable in 90s pop-culture, only to reappear with a bang post-9/11. That's another way in which this story is a time-capsule; it's like an old acquaintance has come back for a visit, tweaking my cheek and telling me the last time he saw me I ran naked into the living room and knocked out a tooth on the wooden couch while all the houseguests clucked and fluttered.
Dr. Manhattan, one of the characters firmly in the conservative camp, made an interesting observation: since these were all superheroes whose heyday was in the early 40s, a fad begun by Siegel and Shuster but (in the comic's storyline) deeply gauche after the concentration camps were cracked open and let out the stench of real good and evil onto the world, the whole team of heroes ("masked adventurers" in those days) found themselves disillusioned and unloved by the public. In an essay about his own genesis (centered on the media's "God is real-- and he's American!"), he made a crack about the ensuing 50s: the nation's pop focus was now on beatniks and a hip-swinging subversive musician, rather than on the black-and-white world the heroes had exemplified before the war. "We fought a war for American values-- only to have the nation turn its eyes to Elvis?" was the refrain.
Fast-forward to two or three weeks ago, when Lileks called America "The Axis of Elvis". None of the "conservative" bloggers batted an eye; in fact, they rallied around it and quoted it, much as Den Beste and Sullivan and Reynolds and Johnson are doing now, gleefully co-opting as a banner a meme that was intended as a slur. If I may invoke a Simpsons quote that's too newly broadcast to have become recognizable yet: "We're the Learn to Fart state!"
But that's the thing about America, apparently. What defines us is our ability to reinvent ourselves so quickly, so readily, rejecting the mindset that came before us but unafraid to make whatever we ourselves latch onto be even more vibrant and self-defining. Elvis was a threat to the very fabric of society at first-- but rather than suppress him, we let him tear up the fabric of our society. And the result was that society knitted itself back together in a way that was more amenable to the times, rather than stretching and straining under the load of old sensibilities as well as new. We require our elder generations to keep up with the times or risk being disenfranchised, because it's the younger generations that write the social rules. Some might see that as a lack of respect for our elders, a quality that makes us contemptible in the eyes of other peoples for whom such respect is paramount. But what I think is telling about us is that for the most part, our society does adapt as it ages; it assimilates new ways of thinking and speaking. We might giggle at cell-phone ads featuring little old ladies speaking hacker-l33t or cane-leaning men conversing in fluent hip-hop 'hood, but it's less a joke than an ideal that we seem to regard with affection. We like to think of our elders relating to us on our terms; it's our preferred mode of operation, rather than idealizing relating to them on their terms.
And perhaps that's what gives us the ability to reinvent ourselves so quickly, and to redefine what "American" means-- for Elvis to go from subversive object of derision and suspicion to beloved, nostalgic national symbol in the space of twenty or thirty years. My culture, growing up, was the 80s of Nintendo and Transformers cartoons; today, that age bracket is using cellphones and listening to progressive techno and watching anime and playing DDR, and I find myself wishing I could be a part of it rather than sneering at it and popping sour grapes. (Mmmm, sour grapes.)
Does this make us any different from other countries in the world? Perhaps, if the implication is that we continue to believe that the Golden Age is in the future, and we're inching toward it every day, sometimes even leaping and flying toward it-- rather than in an imagined past, a grace from which we're falling farther with each new fad and reinvention of the world. It's certainly true that a lot of European countries have seen better days, and aren't likely to see them again if they keep on their current track; but there are other countries in the world-- among them Russia, China, Afghanistan, Eastern Europe, and the United States-- for whom it still feels as though the story is building to something.
There's still a good two hundred brightly colored comic pages in my right hand. The story's pretty bleak at this point, but there's plenty more on the way-- and blood or no blood, gritty alleys or no gritty alleys, sex scandals between superheroes or no sex scandals, somehow I still expect a happy ending.
UPDATE: Steven Den Beste tells me that everything I expect about what's coming is wrong. Boy oh boy.
|
| Saturday, February 22, 2003 |
03:29 - Scrappleface for a day
|
(top) |
(I hope this hasn't been done already. More to the point, I hope it doesn't suck.)
(2003-02-23) -- UN inspectors in Iraq today announced a broadening of the scope of their group's objectives. In response to new intelligence findings, according to chief inspector Hans Blix, the team of agents will no longer be looking only for biological and chemical weapons in the country; they will now also be looking for psychological, historical, and mathematical weapons, as well as a number of other varieties.
"Our sources have indicated that Saddam Hussein's ambitions in recent years to develop weapons of mass destruction have been primarily focused upon exploiting the weaknesses in the American public education system," Dr. Blix said in a press statement Saturday, after a visit to a warehouse that was rumored to house illicit Euler equations and contour integrals, but which appeared to have been hastily emptied just prior to the team's scheduled arrival, leaving only some non-specific residues at the poles. "Saddam's top scientists have apparently been hard at work developing ways to strike at Western interests using the entire spectrum of disciplines, not just the few that we have been investigating to date."
Saddam's forays into such unconventional weaponry are not new, however. Iraqi defectors have spoken on multiple occasions of secret programs to incorporate massless pulleys and frictionless surfaces into a so-called "kinematic bomb", and there are uncorroborated rumors of an "algebraic agent" being tested on a remote Kurdish village in the late 1980s, though the results are said to have been ambiguous.
"There can be no doubt that if Saddam Hussein were to obtain these kinds of unconventional weapons, he would unhesitatingly use them against his neighbor nations or against Israeli or American targets," US Secretary of State Colin Powell said in response to the announcement. "The thought of a large-scale attack involving a trigonometric or geographical bomb in a major American city, particularly if delivered by agents of al Qaeda posing as ordinary high-school or college instructors, is enough to chill the blood. It is the duty of the United States government to defend its citizens from academic attacks by whatever means are necessary."
On the other hand, officials at a number of major munitions factories in the United States, clandestinely known as "high schools", declined to comment as to the speculation that they have themselves been developing such weapons and arming American youth with them for decades. MoveZig.org, a liberal organization currently focused on preventing a war in Iraq, has responded to Dr. Blix's announcement with a promise to protest this seeming inequity.
"America has been building up a stockpile of horrific weapons of mass education for the better part of a century," said Elijah Frizzay, a spokesman for MoveZig.org. "Who are we to say that Iraq can't have those same weapons, while we make no attempt to disarm ourselves or Israel? We have no right to demand anything of Iraq until we choose to put aside our learnmongering and welcome nations like Iraq back into the academic community.
"We might actually learn something," Frizzay said. "After all, algebra was invented by the Arabs. I think this war is all just an excuse for George W. Bush to seize Iraq's civics and wood-shop resources. These things aren't worth a single accidentally sawn-off Iraqi finger."
|
|
23:54 - For refreshment of the spirit
http://www.metalandmagic.com/Pages/Galleries/Comic/other/irrational1.html
|
(top) |
This just in: "Subconscious Chupacabra", a 32-page comic by Ursula Vernon. The first story arc is done, and there's more to come-- and if it's anything like this, that's excellent news.
It's about... well, not to put to fine a point on it, it's about the monsters under the bed, among other locations. There's some very invigorating sophistication underlying the seeming prosaic simplicity of the premise; I love the overtone of "seen-it-all goth girl forced to become credulous again". I'm impressed.
And if you like this, there's plenty more good meme fuel at her main page, particularly under the "Comics" section. Two little gay anteaters are we...
|
| Friday, February 21, 2003 |
03:46 - A "Fish Without A Bicycle" for our times
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/babbin.htm
|
(top) |
Marcus sends me this interesting tidbit:
Whenever the U.S. favors military action that France opposes (such as the disagreement in April 1986 that saw France denying U.S. F-111's overfly permission on their way to a bombing mission against Libya), jokes and sardonic comments about the prowess and fortitude of the French military inevitably ratchet up several levels in the American media. Hence the latest pithy anti-French quote making the rounds, this one emphasizing American frustration with France and expressing the attitude that having French support in military ventures is ineffective and irrelevant -- "going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion."
These words were spoken by Jed Babbin, a former deputy undersecretary of defense in the first Bush administration, during a 30 January 2003 appearance on the political talk show Hardball. The full comment (offered during the course of a discussion about differences between U.S. and European policy towards Iraq) was: " . . . you know frankly, going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. You just leave a lot of useless noisy baggage behind."
That's some pretty frank talk (ow!), even from a retired politician. I wonder if it'll catch on. If it's on Snopes, I suppose it already has.
I certainly wouldn't mind having a few of the likes of the Dissident Frogman along, though.
|
|
23:28 - Holy Crap on a Plate!
http://www.x-entertainment.com/articles/0744/
|
(top) |
Hiker needs to die for sending me this link. My only hope of salvation is to pass it on to dozens of other people, so as to disperse the curse.
(Disperse the curse! I like that. I've gotta think of a reason to chant it.)
What frightens me horribly is the thought that enough people are out there who would buy this box of evil on a daily basis that they have to sell it... in bulk... over and over... there's a factory that manufactures these things...
...While Tillamook extra-sharp white cheddar is $15 a brick. And those prepackaged giant dill pickles are only 3,000 mg of sodium per. What a world, what a world.
And to think-- just the other day, on NPR, they had on a guest who had written a glowing nostalgic book on the history of the sainted TV Dinner. The product that made Swanson's fortune, and of which this is only the latest incarnation.
|
| Thursday, February 20, 2003 |
19:58 - Whiteboard of Doom
|
(top) |
We've all got whiteboards in our cubicles at work now. This can be used, in the words of Strong Bad, for good or for awesome.
|
| Wednesday, February 19, 2003 |
23:44 - A compelling case
http://www.brain-terminal.com/articles/video/peace-protest.html
|
(top) |
CapLion sends this link: a video-blog/interview of the protesters in New York.
As it turns out, it's pointless for pro-war bloggers to try to make the case that the marchers are incoherent and clueless; the clearest proof of that comes directly from the protesters' very mouths.
I hope for the sake of the country that there were a few people in attendance whose cogent opinions Ken simply elected not to put into the finished video.
|
|
09:52 - Hey, there's an idea
http://www.thewavemag.com/pagegen.php?pagename=article&articleid=23016
|
(top) |
Awriiiiight. Seanbaby has just put up another article in The Wave, this time exploring the phenomenon of Raiders fans trashing Oakland after the Super Bowl. I'm sure readers of The Wave are likely to be more receptive to this kind of thing than the average bear...
If there's one thing that's clear now, it's that we'll never know what causes sports rioting until we ask the screaming mob of arsonists themselves. But they, of course, would light us on fire and kill us. So instead, we should focus on how to stop this type of activity in the future. There are a couple ways we can do this. The first is stricter crowd control. Today, police have a number of less-lethal methods at their disposal: tear gas, rubber bullets, fire hoses, sticks and more. These are all very cute. And while I agree with whichever little girl invented rubber bullets that we shouldn't open fire on every savage mob that comes along, remember, these are people who are destroying a city over a football game. We should be fighting that with flesh-eating acid. It might sound harsh, but let's not kid ourselves -- if someone's lighting your house on fire because a sports team didn't perform well, they probably aren't going to grow up to take sick children on trust-building whitewater rafting expeditions. Human life is a precious thing, to a point. And seeing the torch-carrying Raider enthusiast in front of you get melted down into a pile of steaming soup will probably make your savage brain think twice before you throw that brick at the firemen.
|
| Tuesday, February 18, 2003 |
15:39 - Now that's censorship!
|
(top) |
A few days ago I posted about the ACLU's collection of controversial post-9/11 cartoons and its proud and heroic gallery showing how these brave cartoonists were flouting the will of the Man by speaking their minds, drawing blood with every sweep of their pens-that-are-mightier-than-swords, risking suppression and censorship at the hands of all-seeing government agents.
But one cartoon they didn't list, forwarded to me by Mark Johnson, was this one:
The senate's University and External Affairs Committee late Monday night dropped a controversial portion of the condemnation bill, killing a recommendation to raise the rent of the independent student newspaper because of the controversial cartoon. The Daily Cal leases its offices on the sixth floor of Eshleman Hall from ASUC.
Some senators said the authors cut that part of the bill under criticism from student groups and senate opponents.
The amended bill, SB 67A, proposes that all elected ASUC officials sign a letter calling for a printed apology on the front page of the Daily Cal "for using poor judgment during volatile times and possibly endangering students on this campus."
The proposal also asks the Daily Cal's editors to require mandatory sensitivity training for its staff.
See, this is insensitive and inflammatory. But this is brave and heroic.
I get it.
|
|
13:57 - Rallying Sense
|
(top) |
A couple of really good pieces just recently got linked from InstaPundit; after what went on this weekend, I expected as much, but it's refreshing to see it arrive right on schedule. First, there's Mark Steyn's National Post column that takes to pieces the placard-holding-protester mentality, such as it is. If people continue to insist upon chestnuts such as America as the "real terrorists" and Bush as the next Hitler after reading this, there's probably not much more that can be said to them.
If everybody thought like Saturday's marchers, it would be curtains for all of us. But we're not quite there yet, and reality will be breaking in very soon. Saying that Bush is the real "weapon of mass destruction" is awful cute the first nine or ten thousand times, but only if you live in Toronto or Paris or Madrid. Viewed by an Iraqi from the reality of Basra, it's pathetic.
And then there's this post by Brian Micklethwait on Samizdata that goes over the probable Long View on the War on Terror: the stuff that we're not being told about now because to do so would jeopardize the entire enterprise. Bush told us last September that the war would be long and difficult, and yet we assumed that he was only trying to set low expectations for a campaign in Afghanistan or something, so we wouldn't be disappointed when we still had troops in Tora Bora come March. But that's not what he meant. He meant this war will, literally, take years.
Meanwhile, whatever Blair or the Brits or the French or the Timbuktooans might say or think, the USA plan is to take Iraq, and following that, over the next few years, to make itself a lot safer than now from terrorist attacks by (a) chasing terrorists, absolutely everywhere on the planet, and by (b) putting whatever pressure is necessary on any government anywhere which is now not chasing terrorists to switch to chasing terrorists with comparable zeal to the USA, thereby making the USA, and the West and the World in general, massively safer from terrorist attack than we all are now. And if that also makes the USA a whole lot more of a force in the world even than it is now, well, the Americans can live with that.
Maybe people weren't taking Bush seriously when he alluded to this, but it's what I've been assuming all along. And as for the accusations of American "empire", well-- read the comments following the article, which contain a number of sound arguments as to why America is neither equipped for nor inclined toward such a thing.
It's going to be a hard slog, and not all of it's going to be faraway news items that we can read about safely from our computers. This is bigger than oil, it's bigger than nukes. Really-- it is. And yet it's probably going to take the hindsight of 2010 or 2020 to really prove that to us.
|
| Monday, February 17, 2003 |
21:15 - Iraqi Explorer
http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
|
(top) |
Seems Microsoft has deployed an updated version of IE to the Gulf region, for the use of the weapons inspectors. (I guess having Blix look for the weapons by sitting behind a computer typing their code names into Google wasn't working well enough.)
Cute, I must say. Particularly in how it leaves no side of the debate unmocked. It's equal-opportunity ribbing! That's the way to go, if you ask me...
|
|
18:51 - Just so's we're clear
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=5604_Fifth_Column_Rappers
|
(top) |
I don't think many thinking people are fooled by this sort of thing, but apparently there are a lot of people who need reality to have subtitles. So here's one piece of helpful translation:
Although he makes no bones about loathing Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's government ("I disagree with every aspect of Sharon"), Ahmad maintains that neither he nor anyone in the group is anti-Semitic.
"I am a Semite, so I can't be anti-Semitic," says Ahmad, pointing out that the correct definition of the word "Semite" is anyone speaking a Semitic language, including Arabs.
"We all come from Abraham . . . the Quran says that if you don't follow all the prophets, you're not a real Muslim," he says as the others nod.
Anybody who answers the question "Are you anti-Semitic?" with a tangent about what the definition of "Semitic" is, is anti-Semitic. Yes, yes-- I understand how broad the definition of "Semites" is in an ethnic and linguistic sense. But the interviewer needed a big sign to be floating behind him that read: YOU KNOW WHAT HE MEANT.
This is called a "dodge", and it is a tactic used by people who don't want to give a straight and truthful answer on the grounds that it will be self-incriminating.
(Via LGF.)
Me, I like Trey and Matt's exchange at the beginning of one of one of the South Park DVDs.
Trey: Many viewers see us making fun of Jews on the show a lot, and they want to know: Are you guys anti-Semitic?
Matt: <chuckling> Well, it's a fair question; but considering that I'm Jewish, I'd say it would be pretty hard for me to be anti-Semitic.
Trey: <sunny indulgent smile> I am, however.
|
|
18:02 - Catching Up
|
(top) |
Hoo-boy. It's been a long weekend, and I've really been out of the loop.
I had a friend visiting from Canada, and we spent the last three days on a whirlwind tour of the Bay Area-- taking in all the points of interest that I could think of, both traditional touristy things like the Golden Gate Bridge and North Beach and the Castro, and cool spots of more personal significance like Summit Rock and Quimby Road and Kearney Street (up by Coit Tower) and Skyline Boulevard and my new house. We ended up discovering some cool out-of-the-way secrets that I hadn't actually known about before, and the weather cooperated and everything.
Little did I know that while we were laughing with friends in restaurants and hiking trails, San Francisco's lights below us hid a fresh wave of anti-war protests. It's really getting ugly out there, and I'm starting to feel less and less like I know what I'm doing and where the world is going. Having just watched Big Trouble in Little China and Akira for the first time this weekend as well didn't really help matters; now I'm haunted by nocturnal visions of San Francisco vanishing under a blinding white dome, slowly expanding outward from some central nexus as civil unrest changes the color of the streets worldwide faster and more sharply than has ever happened in the past. Writing on this page for the past year, I've been the proverbial frog in the saucepan, oblivious to the rising temperature and unwilling to shake off the miasma of dulled perspective that prevents me from realizing that I'm about to be boiled alive.
Right after the towers were hit, people on the news were saying over and over again that this changes everything. Few people could say much that added to that sentiment, but we knew, somehow-- instincively, viscerally-- that this changes everything. We had every reason to believe that the world would be forever altered from top to bottom, that either all of humanity would unite in brotherhood, or we would be plunged into protracted war and suffering. There wasn't much middle ground that we could see. We fully expected more attacks. We jumped at every news report. I woke up every morning with my hand twitching on the Refresh button on CNN.com.
But those follow-up attacks never came, and we started to realize that somehow, confusingly, not much had really actually changed. The towers weren't there anymore. Three thousand people were dead. But where was the changed world? Afghanistan came and went as a news item, and soon the only concrete evidence of 9/11 was the ongoing discourse over whether new and old movies should have the World Trade Center in their panoramas of the Manhattan skyline anymore.
I think, however, that 9/11 bit deep-- deeper than we've come to think it did. It's like a childhood injury that comes back to haunt you in the form of a bad back. It's like a seemingly small mechanical failure under the hood, a popped screw or a leaking coolant hose, that manifests itself in its full significance only when you decide to exercise that faulty part.
We're now going to war, and so there's a requisite peace movement. There's nothing inherently new or unusual about this. But what is new is the deafening stridency of the protests-- the naked anti-Americanism, the shameless support of our declared enemies, the open distrust and fear of our own government and the belief in a nebulous concept called "peace" that everybody seems to believe is there for the taking, if only we allow ourselves to grow up-- and that in spite of the largest, most audacious, most viscerally compelling demonstration that we've ever in living memory seen of the fact that peace does not happen by itself. This world was well on the way to being more peaceful than it's ever been, true-- but we've had it brought home to us, forcefully, that mistaking complacency for peace encourages people to become our enemies and attack us. And these protesters seem unwilling to let themselves see that their good intentions ignore plain, bare facts-- that we're entering a new historical period of war, world-altering war, that has been thrust upon us; that 9/11 was not an aberration that can be quickly forgotten and forgiven; that a cancer has grown on the Earth, and if not excised it will only grow worse and eat us all.
Peace protests before 9/11 were points of passing interest. They were never unpatriotic; they were expressions of popular dissent, always a requirement in a free society. But 9/11 tweaked something deep down in our collective soul; it threw something off the rails, it loosened a few screws. And now that we're revving up the anti-war engine again, it's rattling and banging in a way that it never used to back when it was under warranty. It's making those kinds of noises that signal an imminent meltdown, the kind that costs us three months' pay, particularly if we keep on belting on down the highway without paying attention to the smoke pouring out the tailpipe.
Peace isn't the absence of war. Peace is the willingness to accept certain risks in the world landscape, on the understanding that other people won't take advantage of us-- because they're taking on those same risks for the same reason. Peace is a mutual understanding reached by a unanimous community of similarly-minded peoples, with an absence of hatred and resentment, with common goals and an inherent incentive toward cooperation and friendship. Peace isn't something you get if you just lie down and cover your head with your hands while the other kids hurl rocks at it. That's called surrender, not peace. And it's what comes about when your vision of "peace" is simply "not fighting anymore", even if that includes self-defense.
"America isn't under attack", some say. But one has only to look at the desires of our enemies, expressed in so many press statements and propaganda videos and sermons, to realize that the only reason we're not suffering more attacks right now is because they lack the means, not because they aren't really our enemies. They are. They say so every week. And sooner or later, 9/11 will happen again, or something worse. To disagree with that possibility is to ascribe to them immense fecklessness and unwillingness to follow through on their own threats. I don't think that's a tenable logical position. these are human beings we're talking about, but human beings deeply and thoroughly convinced that it's their duty to do whatever is in their power to destroy us. They've already declared war on us, and they're dead serious about it. For us to march for peace under such conditions is to proclaim that we can bend spoons with our minds.
The problem still exists; the threat is still real, because the hatred is still real. The hatred is of what we are, not of what we do; and so short of changing fundamentally what we are, there is no solution to that hatred other than to remove the immediate threat by whatever expedient force is necessary, and then work on defusing whatever cultural and religious schisms divide us from that part of the world that currently wants us dead.
I spent Sunday evening with a couple of friends, watching the sun set over Silicon Valley from Summit Rock, unaware of what human opinion seethed under the lights that came on pinprick by pinprick in the expanse that stretched under us, from Cupertino to Milpitas, from Los Gatos to the northerly city glow silhouetting the San Bruno mountain line. It was awfully peaceful up there, true; but I know that if I had to sit at that vantage point and watch those points of light being snuffed out below me, under a cloud of bioweapon or something worse, the peace I'd achieved by putting myself out of harm's way would have been the most shameful delusion I'd ever bought myself.
They're waving Iraqi flags down there, I told myself. They're chanting that Bush is dumber than Forrest Gump and more evil than Hitler. They're declaring the US to be the biggest threat to world peace that currently exists. I knew these things were happening, but somehow it wasn't until I came down the hill and started reading the weekend's news and blogs that I started to think about how deeply into the nation's heart 9/11 really cut-- and what's more disturbing, just how irrational and vigorous our reflexive reaction to that affront has been. Never before has this world been in such a position: accustomed to so much ease and wealth and power, and confronted with a menace of such raw and primitive fury. We've evolved beyond the ability to deal coherently with it. And while in Vietnam our country's protesters grew their numbers measure by measure, over the course of years, only becoming significant as a political movement some four years after the war began, today we've declared our own country the enemy before we've even taken a decisive proactive step toward cutting out the cancer that has attacked us. We've become astonishingly quick to blame ourselves, to declare even self-defense to be antithetical, to reject outright any shadow of the promulgation of our world philosophy that has been a hallmark of America since the days of the Monroe Doctrine. It's only now that our people have grown so eased and complacent that the ideas of "puppet governments" and "promotion of democracy" and even "right and wrong" all seem like sinister relics of our parents' time.
The current conflict should be so black-and-white, so good-and-evil on its very surface that it seems it should have given the world a consensus unlike any it had ever seen in history. But it would seem from the evidence that when the MTV Generation meets the Dark Ages, there's no context for dialogue. There's just too big a rift. Wry irony, when given a sword and an enemy to smite with it, would rather impale itself with a smirk for the sake of the laugh it will get, than to take the obvious "right" course and swing for the bleachers. We all expect a trick question, and so we can't bring ourselves to come up with a straight answer no matter how high the stakes.
"Interesting times," they call them. It's never intended in a good way.
I worry that the wounds to our own country's confidence in its own system will be every bit as hard to heal, after all this is over with, as the wounds in the Middle East will be.
UPDATE: Dane Petersen says much the same thing, only a lot more succinctly. Plus he goes on to link to the bizarre movies and stuff I've been accumulating over the weekend. It's so good to see that some people still know when wry irony is appropriate (freaky pop-humor memes) and when it's not (waving US flags with swastikas instead of stars).
|
| Saturday, February 15, 2003 |
03:12 - Pixel Pushers
http://www.shynola.com/j_s/j_s_download.htm
|
(top) |
I once dreamed of being able to create pixel art like this-- and not even pixel art that moved, either. It's seeing stuff like this that makes me realize there are some things I'll never achieve, no matter how little sleep I allow myself for the rest of my life.
There's just something so refreshing about watching this video. I can't describe it. It's like... low-pixel-count animation was never ever meant to look this good. As a technical and artistic achievement, it's unassailable; as a style statement, it's stuck in my brain forever now. You'll have to look for yourself.
"Shynola", huh? That's a name I'll have to remember...
|
|
04:27 - Arrowed!
http://www.homestarrunner.com/tgs2.html
|
(top) |
No sane person should care about this, but of course that's why I find it of such grave importance: There's a new addition to "Teen Girl Squad", the newest running gag at homestarrunner.com.
(If for some inscrutable reason you want to know where this meme of doom came from in the first place, it's right here.)
|
| Wednesday, February 12, 2003 |
20:51 - Who fixes plumbing problems in a flash?
http://crustacea.nhm.org/~dean2/crab.html
|
(top) |
This is the creepiest damned thing I've seen in a long, long time.
(And yes, I'm even including this among the runners-up.)
|
| Tuesday, February 11, 2003 |
09:54 - Hey... stop that.
http://www.clevescene.com/webextra/2003-02-05/derf.html
|
(top) |
In deciding how indignant to be about this, I have to conclude that what's worst about it is probably that it's largely true, about lots of people's opinions of the world these days. I wouldn't say it's too far off. I mean, maybe not worded quite like that, but...
I'd like to see one of Europe, though.
UPDATE: Ask and thou shalt receive; Mike Silverman comes through in the clutch.
|
| Saturday, February 8, 2003 |
00:37 - For God's sake, take cover
|
(top) |
It may be time to panic. I just heard on the radio-- the regional weather service has just issued a stern, sweeping warning; it applies to all residents of Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, San Francisco, and Sonoma counties. That includes a whole lotta people. I'm fearful of what this means for the millions in the area.
The warning?
Temperatures may drop below freezing tonight. So, uh, reserve some attention for the well-being of outdoor plants and pets.
...Just thought that was so cute. Oh, incidentally, the air was excellently clear today. Too bad I had to spend most of it indoors; bleah.
|
| Wednesday, February 5, 2003 |
03:26 - Coffin nails in the skyline
|
(top) |
I was going to say something about what the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation has decided are the two best possible ideas for replacing the WTC-- but I knew it would be pointless to try to come up with anything that would qualify as insight, compared to the inevitable (and oh-so-welcome) analysis by Lileks.
He doesn't like either one, and I'm glad I'm not the only one. (I noticed, on the day the finalists were posted, that the CNN preference poll was evenly split 32.1%-32.1% between the two choices, and yes, it was really that close-- and another third of the participants had voted for "any design but these two". Not a ringing endorsement among the populace. While I may be cavalier about politicians' obligation to listen to opinion polls that canvass respondents who don't have anywhere near as much classified intelligence on a given matter as the politicians do, I do think the LMDC has some obligation to do what the people want to see in the WTC's place. And the people are looking at these designs and wrinkling their noses.
The two designs the LMDC has chosen were at the bottom of my preference list; both seemed very, very wrong. I'm yet more sure of that now that I've looked more closely at both, now that we're going to have to live with one of them. And that's what I think is going to be one of the sticking points here, something that ought to give New Yorkers and all Americans pause: With the WTC simply gone, there's the warm glow of hope-- hope that whatever goes in there in its place will be something to dwarf even the previous towers in grandeur and awe-inspiration. There's the element of pleasant surprise; how many of us looked at the empty skyline and said, "Well, there's nothing there now, and it looks empty, but just wait'll they build something new!" There's the assumption that whatever goes there will be something we can be proud of, something that will comfort us for the loss of the first WTC through its tastefulness and originality and its odd familiarity. We feel as though whatever we get, it'll be better than the WTC was. We're in the 21st Century now, aren't we? Surely we know how to build beautiful buildings now, after so many centuries of practice? There's no way we can go wrong, is there?
Sure there is, unfortunately. We can always try to outsmart ourselves-- if you will, to THINK the design to death.
I remain sort of reluctantly partial to the WTC2002 design-- audacious as it is, it's still a building as we understand the concept, and it works with the existing Manhattan skyline to form a sturdy anchor-- a masthead for the country, one that we can tie our nation's rigging ropes to, and one that won't snap off in the wind out of being really no more than a latticework memorial. It's a real building, with real people and real culture inside. The old WTC stood at one end of the country like a billboard, saying, "Go west beyond this point, and more of this is what you'll see. People working, building their national dream. They're all on display here, doing what they do best, thirty thousand of them in two gigantic vertical boxes. Be inspired, and go find your own box somewhere out there in that great expanse westward. Go through the gateway and seek the fortune that we wish you." The old WTC was the beginning of America, traveling westward. But these new designs do the opposite; they're the end of America, traveling eastward. They're the prows of foundering ships. They're ghosts and relics and memories. They're not vibrant celebrations of the future, they're morose fixations on the past. One evokes that past through a macabre and disturbing phantom; the other leaps so far away from the old visual mores as to reject even a contemplation of what made that place special. And neither design projects an image of strength; even if they're both potentially the world's tallest structures, neither one beckons the viewer with an impossibly thriving iteration of the familiar, as the old towers did. Instead, they make the viewer frown and wonder. They don't reassure, they disturb.
Worst of all, if one of these designs gets built, that will be it. What if it sucks? What if New York decides the building is really, really awful? They can't very well get rid of it and start over. They'll be stuck with it. Right now, there's the open-ended hope that whatever gets built will rock. But if the LMDC picks one of these, that hope will be dashed. We'll be condemned to whatever ghostly or alien vision the LMDC decides to visit upon the site, for the foreseeable future. And it'll change the character of Manhattan, and New York, and America, more than the simple lack of the old WTC already has done.
Part of me still says "Build them back exactly like before." I know it's probably not feasible. But Lileks finishes with this lament:
One of the greatest architects of the era was Raymond Hood, who also worked on two modern icons - the Daily News building, which was a glass of cold water in the face, and the gorgeous McGraw Hill building, which isn't much known outside of New York. (It's up there with the Chrysler, in my book.) But he was adept at classical styles; his American Radiator building still overlooks Bryant Park, and it's another one of my favorites. Black stone, gold crown. He was not an innovator, but he captured the essence of a style and distilled it into the best possible expression. If only we could bring him back to life and give him this job. I think I know what he'd do - it would be restrained, severe, symmetrical, and it would strike the sky like two great swords.
Hear frickin' hear.
|
|
10:06 - Any questions?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.un/index.html
|
(top) |
Powell's laid out the evidence. (So much for "Let the inspections work", eh?) Now to sit back and see who's willing to admit they were wrong, and who will instead lash out bitterly at those who turned out to be right. (Ehh, let 'em fume. They had their fun. Now they get to do some soul-searching.)
Here's my favorite part, though:
At the other end of the table, Mohammed Aldouri, Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations, listened to Powell's presentation and waited for his chance to respond. .
I'm sort of expecting his response to be something along the lines of:
"You know, boys, there's an old saying down on the bayou that, uh... blah!"
And then he'll throw Ralph at Colin Powell and run away.
UPDATE: So much for "so much for 'let the inspections work'". I heard the Chilean and Angolan delegates' responses while on the way to work, and I had the same reaction that Ray did. Unbelievable. (And I didn't even get to hear what folks like Syria had to say.)
|
| Monday, February 3, 2003 |
12:05 - Filename Extension Depth Arms Race
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/56/29137.html
|
(top) |
Have I mentioned lately how much I hate filename extensions?
How the New Exploit Works
The exploit relies on especially crafted email headers, creating an attachment with three file-extensions. Standard email packages will not generate these headers; these emails must either be created by hand, or using hacker tools (many of which are freely available, MessageLabs warns). The first extension (e.g. .jpg) is visible to the email user, and is intended to persuade them that the attachment is "safe". The final extension (also, for example, .jpg) is used by Outlook Express to set the icon to represent the application for opening the attachment. However, the unusual middle extension (.EXE) is used by Outlook Express to determine how to launch the attachment, therefore an .EXE file will be executed if a user double clicks on an infected attachment. Other examples may include .COM, .PIF, .SCR, or .VBS.
Die... diiiie... <teeth cracking>
Thanks to Kris for the link.
UPDATE: John Poole did some experimentation and found that OS X's Mail.app is not susceptible to filename-extension trickery. I too am curious as to how it keeps track of the executable bit, and I wonder how it would handle a Classic-style monolithic-file executable (one that isn't a folder "package"). There's also the question of whether Apple intends to try to encapsulate OS X's per-file extension-hiding bit, and what implications that would have for virus.gif.pkg kinds of exploits...
|
|
11:40 - Ill
http://www.homestarrunner.com/systemisdown.html
|
(top) |
Okay... if you're at all a devotee of Strong bad and Homestarrunner.net (It's dot com!), go look at this.
Just... look. That is all.
|
| Sunday, February 2, 2003 |
03:26 - A-suh-puh-ring is here
|
(top) |
Today was probably the clearest, most gorgeous day I've seen all year-- possibly for a couple of years now. Around lunchtime I went up Quimby Road to get the lay of the land, and I found to my pleasant surprise that I could see Mt. Tamalpais quite sharply from my vantage point in the East San Jose hills. I didn't have my camera with me, but-- well, here's a photo from last year, so you can get an idea of the view I'm talking about:
Today was like this, only-- see that faint mountain line along the horizon? See how it's all sort of hazy and vague? Well, pretend instead that it's as vivid and clear a panorama as anything you've seen from 30,000 feet over New Mexico. See that lump of heights over at the right, just above the house with the kickass view but the awful commute? That's Mt. Tam, and it's north of San Francisco. Today, not only could I make out the striations of treelines on the mountain's slopes; I could see individual buildings in downtown San Francisco, right in front of the mountain from my perspective. I could see where Pac Bell Park was. I could see individual neighborhoods. At sixty or seventy miles' distance as I was, I couldn't identify any particular buildings; but I'd know there was a city there, and if I were an alien visitor with the power of unassisted bodily flight, I'd beeline straight for it.
If you follow the mountain line toward the left, southward along the Peninsula, you see a couple of lowish rises-- the hills in the middle of the City, Twin Peaks and the one Sutro Tower is on-- and further left still are the San Bruno Mountains, the line of hills that form the southern boundary of the City, the bulwark that separates SF from South San Francisco: THE INDUSTRIAL CITY. Today, I could see the green of the grass on those hills. I could see the transmission towers on top of them.
I could almost see the Cow Palace, down at the foot of that ridge on the northern side, tucked away into a little sheltered valley-- a Mediterranean seaport town with rich folks living on perches overlooking the Bay from a thousand feet up, minutes from the airport (just head south around the foot of the San Brunos) and just out of reach of the bleak sprawl of the South-of-Market freeway portal that leads into the City's southern quarter. You can take a road up from the Cow Palace into the hillside balcony rows of tract homes, then let the road take you down the ridge of the foothills, aiming you eastward right across the Bay, with its blue water and the houses clinging to the steep hillsides ringing the little cove region south of Candlestick Point and north of the San Brunos. I was just up there yesterday, listening somberly to the ongoing coverage of the Shuttle cleanup and damage-control effort with Lance as we drove home from the Golden Gate Kennel Club show at the Cow Palace. (We'd been there out of more or less idle curiosity-- what with the new house and all, and the marked lack of a landlord other than myself to forbid such things, we've been thinking of getting a dog or two to add to the household. Fun show, indeed-- got to meet a lot of interesting breeds. I nearly got adopted by a Borzoi in the benching area, where he was standing up on two feet so he could match me in height, and he decided my hand was just the thing to lean his head against and force me to plant my feet under his weight like some macho guy on the subway who refuses to grab a handle when the train jolts to a stop.)
So, yeah. It's been a beautiful weekend, with skies of clearest blue, hills of lush springtime green, and trees flowering in the grocery store parking lot. There was a brisk wind blowing all day, which I'm sure is what contributed most to the clarity of the air; that's fine with me, but I wish we could have it more throughout the year, or at least to predict when it'll happen. 'Cause though the fog-rolling-over-the-Peninsula-ridgeline summertime weather patterns play a strong hand, I'm leaning like a Borzoi toward this time of year being my favorite around here.
I've got to stop leaving my camera at work.
|
|
11:08 - Yeah, real compassionate there, guys
http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=22449
|
(top) |
Aziz Poonawalla sends this editorial from the Arab News, and it's encouraging: unequivocated sorrow and reflection, with nary a but to be found.
It is highly probable that yesterday's crash will cause a major setback in the ISS program. Even if another design flaw is not found to be at the heart of the Columbia wreck, it is certain that the other shuttles will be grounded for at least a year. Columbia was, in fact, the oldest ship in NASA's shuttle fleet, built in 1981, five years before the Challenger tragedy. Though extensively refitted several times, most recently with a new cockpit, some sort of structural fatigue seems a strong possibility. It may well be that scientists still have much to learn about the huge stresses placed on metal which has to endure phenomenal stresses at launch and re-entry as well as the unique pressures of life in orbital space.
The immediate lesson remains, however, that this is a tragedy for everyone, not just the United States, India and Israel. We have all lost in this disaster. A technological challenge has been thrown down and once again, a warning given that in the unforgiving region of space, nothing can be taken for granted. The solutions may be a long time coming.
They will come. The struggle to conquer the space will go on. All that we can hope for is that, when the battle is won, the knowledge gained in the process will add to human happiness, not to human misery.
Aaahhh. A breath of fresh air before diving back into the breach. With, namely, another Arab News article on the crash, posted the same day (forwarded by Steven Den Beste):
7 Astronauts die in shuttle blast over 'Palestine'
[Love the mockery-quotes. -ed]
"Once again we see that space technology can fail," Bruce Gagnon, international coordinator for the Global Network against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, told Arab News last night. "I'm troubled because the Bush Administration has recently announced a program called the 'Nuclear Systems Initiative', a $1 billion research and development program to expand the launching of nuclear power into space. The problem is that as you increase the numbers of launches carrying nuclear payloads into space, but you are also going to dramatically increase the chances of a catastrophic Chernobyl in the sky."
Asked why NASA was advising extreme precaution at the crash sites, Gagnon said: "We haven't heard that there was a nuclear payload on this shuttle, but one of the great hallmarks of the Bush administration is increased secrecy. I must admit that when NASA said no one should go near a site because of the toxic potential of the fuels and 'other reasons,' I couldn't help but wonder what those reasons are."
Due to cuts in NASA's budget in recent years, NASA has been forced to turn to the Pentagon for increased funding, said Gagnon. The result is that the space shuttles are now also NASA missions and carry both military and civilian technologies.
"What you have now is the military takeover of the space program. NASA is not just about gazing at the stars, it now also has a political and military agenda." What is of concern, he said, is that the Pentagon in now working on a program called the 'Space Based Laser.' "Its nickname is the 'Death Star,' and its job is to destroy other country's satellites, and also hit targets on the Earth below. NASA hopes to have the first operational tests by 2016 or 2017," Gagnon explained.
"This would give the US full control and domination of space and the earth below, because whoever controls space will control the Earth."
C'mon, Arab News, pick a side. It's either the conspiracy theorists or the human beings.
Steven and I once joked about this. It's no joke anymore, apparently.
Criminy.
UPDATE: Meanwhile, Palestinians have expressed their heartwarming condolences, via LGF.
|
| Saturday, February 1, 2003 |
16:47 - Not In Vain
http://www.israelnewsagency.com/israelastronautilanramon.html
|
(top) |
If there's any consolation to be had, it's that the Shuttle's mission was in fact complete-- which means that the symbolism of Ilan Ramon's flight, including the journey into space of Petr Ginz' "Moon Landscape" drawing, remain intact. And though the experiments and research carried out during this sixteen-day mission was ground-breaking and every piece newsworthy in any less cynical a time, and every member of the crew a hero for accepting the risk inherent in the pioneering nature of the space program in the first place, Ramon's family and country can be particularly proud that he and the crew he flew with died bringing this one symbolic objective to fulfillment.
The art won't be returning to Earth, but it's met an end more poetic than any museum could give it.
|
|
16:27 - I hate being right
|
(top) |
Steven Den Beste mailed me links to several sightings of exactly what I'd hoped not (but morbidly expected) to see: the dancing-in-the-streets of just about everybody who is willing to stoop to this subhuman level of pettiness just to grind their anti-US axe.
First up, as InstaPundit caught early on, was a CBC interviewer in Canada who asked the interview subject whether the accident could be pinned on American "arrogance".
I am watching coverage on different networks. CBC Newsworld just interviewed writer Robert Sawyer for his reflections on the shuttle program and potential causes of the disaster. The Newsworld interviewer asked Sawyer whether the cause was "arrogance" on the part of the U.S. government. (Sawyer said no.) This is one of the most odious questions I can imagine. It took minutes for the CBC to twist a tragedy into a politically motivated theatre of hate. Talk about manufacturing consent.
Furthermore... the interviewer linked American "arrogance" explicitly to current potential conflict in the Middle East. My only surprise is the CBC did not manage to sneer at the death of Israel's first astronaut in the same breath.
Then comes the bitter sniping from those comment-forum-dwellers who are protected from being strangled by a vengeful mob only by the fact that they live in an evil country that doesn't permit that kind of thing:
What's bush up to? I am not afraid to say this -
I guess bush's SOTU speech went over so poorly, he needed a disaster to distract us from his horrible actions and lies.
I am getting sick of this bull. How many more Americans must die for bush to look legit? How often will he need to kill to keep up his legitimacy?
How convenient that the first Israeli citizen was on the shuttle, too. Everybody rally behind Sharon and don't question or speak against him, either.
Just how deep can someone's resentment over not getting his way possibly run? I'd thought we'd seen the worst of what acidic hatred the human frame could sustain in the course of the last couple of years, but I fear we're seeing now that the human capacity for ghoulishness knows no measurable bounds.
Finally, though I didn't really expect not to see something like this, we've got Iraq's enlightened take.
Immediate popular reaction in Baghdad on Saturday to the loss of the U.S. space shuttle Columbia and its seven-member crew -- including the first Israeli in space -- was that its was God's retribution on Americans.
"We are happy that it broke up," government employee Abdul Jabbar al-Quraishi said.
"God wants to show that his might is greater than the Americans. They have encroached on our country. God is avenging us," he said.
Car mechanic Mohammed Jaber al-Tamini noted Israeli air force Colonel Ilan Ramon was among the dead when the shuttle broke up shortly before its return to earth.
"Israel launched an aggression on us when it raided our nuclear reactor without any reason (in 1981), now time has come and God has retaliated to their aggression," Tamini said.
How many Iraqi "minders" were present when these statements were taken, I wonder? Just how "popular" was this sentiment? We've been saying all along that our quarrel is with Saddam Hussein, and not with the Iraqi people; but this is not a good thing to do if you're interested in keeping the game on those terms, guys.
We'll show you some "God's vengeance," by golly, real soon now. In fact, we might stamp that phrase on some of our Saddam's-bedroom-window-seeking missiles. And I guarantee we've got more of those than we do Space Shuttles-- besides which, they're designed to explode.
Awright. Hamas? Arafat? Who's next up? How 'bout France? Yeah, we'll have to come hat-in-hand asking for some Arianes next, eh?
Christ. And here I'd thought 9-11 would have turned out to be a great unifying event which would wake up the vast majority of the world that identifies itself as human and rally it as one. How disillusioned we all must be if I can't even curb my cynicism about what opportunistic bastards some people are willing to make of themselves in response to a Space Shuttle accident.
|
|
08:27 - Pointing fingers
http://www.fas.org/spp/civil/congress/1997_h/hsy274160_0.htm
|
(top) |
How long before someone brings this up?
The specific reason for this hearing is to provide our witnesses with the opportunity to report on the shuttle and the shuttle safety in context of repeated transfers of funds from the shuttle program to the International Space Station. This spring NASA took $190 million out of the Fiscal Year 1997 shuttle budget--and that was over the objections of this Committee, I might add--and this was done to pay for Russian non-performance of the International Space Station. And just last week, the Appropriations Conference Committee on VAHUD, acting at NASA's request, cut another $50 million from the Space Shuttle Program for Fiscal Year 1998 and gave it to the International Space Station. Since most of these funds were going to be spent on upgrades which would improve the shuttle's safety and reliability, it seems self-evident that such cuts will have some impact on safety sooner or later. The only question seems to be, ''How many more times can the cookie jar be raided before we get punished?''
This won't be pretty.
|
|
08:03 - Well...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/02/01/shuttle.columbia/index.html
|
(top) |
Another one of "those days" for NASA. The kind of day that changes the course of the space effort-- and at least for a long time, not for the better. Unless we can use this as a reminder of the importance of properly supporting the space program at the ideological as well as the financial level, the whole idea of a space "shuttle"-- an unsexy, utilitarian mode of space travel, a space bus-- is going to be at odds with any desire to afford it the appropriate attention to prevent accidents like this.
The big question is going to be "Well, Ilan Ramon, the Israeli, was on board. Was there any terrorism-related sabotage?"
Nobody's making that claim yet; nobody's saying word one in that direction. They're explicitly denying it over and over. And that's all to the good; the circumstances (the point at which the accident occurred, after all the mission objectives had been completed; the "debris hit wing on launch" thing; and the fact that the breakup happened at the single most dangerous place in any given space flight) are such that sabotage just isn't an issue.
However... I dare anybody to dance in the streets over this.
We'll just see.
Contextual oddity: Just last night, I was watching the MST3K of 12 To the Moon, a 50s B-film about a moon shot where twelve of the World's Finest Ethnically Diverse Scientists banded together to symbolize Earth's unity in spaaaace. Now, the plot points themselves were laughable, but there was a subplot involving an Israeli scientist and a German whose father was a Nazi higher-up. The two nearly came to blows a number of times, but eventually had to reconcile and give their lives together in a maneuver to save the Earth. Clumsy writing, but a nice sentiment-- and one you probably won't see in movies made today.
(On top of that, the French astronaut turned traitor and tried to get the German to join with him and condemn the North American continent to being frozen by the Moon people, so the old European powers could have their glory back. The German refused and the American helped subdue him. Wait, when was this movie made?
|
| Wednesday, January 29, 2003 |
01:16 - It was all just a dream
|
(top) |
This morning, when I woke up, it was with great startlement. I'd been immersed in one of those dreams that seemed utterly plausible when in progress, and even managed to retain much of its plausibility long into the day.
It started with Bush, or maybe one of the White House advisers-- actually, it was probably Rumsfeld-- on some interview show like Face the Nation. He looked tired, haggard, hunted; it was the day after the SOTU, just as in real life, but for all intents and purposes you'd think the speech had been one of surrender.
The interviewer asked a few questions, beating around the bush; the interviewee dodged them without making eye contact. Finally, whoever it was holding the microphone said, point blank: Are we going to war in Iraq?
And Rumsfeld, or Fleischer, or whoever-it-was, said: No.
This caught the interviewer by surprise. He asked for elaboration.
"We just can't go to war in good conscience," Rumsfleischerbush said. "We can't ignore the fact that so many of our own people are demonstrating so loudly outside these very doors, demanding that we stop."
I suspect I was lying in a pool of sweat at this point. But he went on:
"We still believe war is absolutely justified-- all our evidence and intelligence still tells us that the only way to secure peace in the Middle East and for the American people is to remove Saddam Hussein from power, eliminating the threat of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of al Qaeda. We believe that failing to act against him right now would be a grievous mistake and an act of reckless endangerment of our people bordering on high treason.
"But... we simply can't allow ourselves to go into the history books of future American and European children as being a government, supposedly elected by the people, who steadfastly refused to listen to those very people when their voices rang out the loudest they had done in decades. We cannot take an action that, even if it is justified by our internal classified intelligence, will be widely viewed by the public as an imperialistic power play or a grab for oil. We cannot abide the hypocrisy of our own nation for having nuclear weapons while we forbid Iraq and North Korea from having that same power. We cannot deny that action by the US military in a foreign country, no matter what the justification, is morally equivalent to any terrorist attack perpetrated against our own nation. Public opinion must be held in higher regard than the strategic recommendations of our most senior advisers and experts, and must absolutely trump any prior pledge by our President. The President serves the people, and he cannot serve the people unless he obeys their momentary demands before obeying the mandate of defending the Constitution that he assumed at his inauguration.
"Never let it be said that we dared to claim to know what was best for our own people. Never let it be said that we allowed our own privileged, insider information on world affairs take precedence over the clearly expressed wishes of huge crowds of our citizens and those of our brother nations in Europe, thronged in the streets of the world's cities. Never let it be said that the US Government presumed to know more about how to end terrorism than the university students of the world did. Never let it be said that we did what we knew was right instead of what our loudest people asserted was right."
I remember seeing news reports covering this exchange. I remember seeing unbelievable outpourings of support gush forth from the streets formerly trod by A.N.S.W.E.R. I remember seeing Bush's approval rating soar, the plummeting to zero of warbloggers' opinion of him being muffled to inconsequence by the immense flowering of goodwill from the Left.
I remember blogging about it, but I don't remember what I said. I just remember the onset of a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach, along with the strange unaccountable desire to move to Montana.
It was about at this stage that I woke up.
I tell you... no more generic-label pickles before bed for me.
|
| Tuesday, January 28, 2003 |
20:17 - Expelliarmus
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript/index.html
|
(top) |
We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.
And while we're at it, maybe we can dis-leg him, and possibly dis-head him too.
(Sorry-- this is what happens when I get a ride home from Kris.)
|
|
11:16 - Redmond Justice
http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=31168037
|
(top) |
Ahh, now this is the kind of thing that puts a twisted smile on my lips. It's only a partial consolation for the network's damage at the hands of the SQL Slammer worm; but it does melt the ice surrounding my wrought-iron heart just a little.
Microsoft Corp. itself was exposed to the virus-like attack that crippled global Internet activity last weekend because it failed to install crucial fixes to its own software on many Microsoft computer servers.
Although Microsoft contends its failure to keep up with its own updates did not cause major problems, security experts said it points to a larger issue: Microsoft's process for keeping customers' software secure is hugely flawed.
The virus-like attack, called "slammer" or "sapphire," exploited a known flaw in Microsoft's "SQL Server 2000" database software, used by businesses, government agencies, universities and others around the world. Microsoft had issued a patch for the flaw in July, but many _ including some units within Microsoft _ had failed to install it.
The result was that the attacking software scanned for victim computers so randomly and so aggressively that it saturated many of the Internet's largest data pipelines, slowing e-mail and Web surfing around the world.
Microsoft spokesman Rick Miller declined to say which areas or how many computers at Microsoft were affected. He acknowledged that some servers were left unfixed because administrators "didn't get around to it when they should have."
Not that this will do anything in the long term to change anybody's approach to proper administrative habits. Oh, sure, it'll put the fear of God into a few IT guys, for a few months. Lots of techs will get sent to security training seminars; lots of consultants will make lots of money.
But sooner or later, everyone will go back to the tried-and-true method of using whatever software came preinstalled on their servers, hiring MCSEs to maintain it who follow little flowcharts and leave root passwords on Post-it Notes stuck to their monitors, and relying on service contracts and lawsuits to cover their asses in the event of anything bad happening.
It's cheaper that way, of course. It's how the insurance industry works. Hope for the best, but pay a tax and gamble that it'll explode, because someone else will take care of it if it does.
Meanwhile, we on the Internet get stuck in traffic jams behind massive auto pileups, and nobody's raising the premiums.
|
|
11:08 - The Sordid Underbelly of Video Games
http://www.seanbaby.com/nes/naughty.htm
|
(top) |
Seanbaby strikes again! This time, he's got a rundown of the Top Ten Naughtiest Games of All Time. The long and storied history of pornographic video games, in all their (ahem) glory.
And yes, it includes "Boong-ga Boong-ga". Though it inexplicably only came in at #2. ...Okay, well, maybe it's totally understandable, considering what won #1.
Not Safe For Work, naturally-- but more because of how loud your laughter will be than because of the illustrations and screenshots.
Getting these sluts out of their panties requires such a fantastic level of hand-eye coordination and rapid reflexes that it becomes a death trap. Because if you masturbated using your amazing dexterity, there's a good chance it'll end with a pleasure-induced brain seizure and a fucking disturbing corpse for your landlord to find.
Seanbaby rocks my world.
|
| Monday, January 27, 2003 |
09:20 - American sports fans show how mature they are
http://www.msnbc.com/news/864816.asp?0cv=CB10
|
(top) |
And to think I had felt self-righteous about our lack of British soccer fans trashing stadiums and crushing other fans, or of Toronto hockey fans turning downtown into a circus of drunken death. Here I'd thought hey, that could never happen here. Yeah, we have football; but at least people just sit calmly at home and drink their own beer and pass out afterwards instead of going out and killing people.
About 10 vehicles were set on fire, and crowds broke the windows of at least one television news van, police and witnesses said. One group of young men set debris on fire in the middle of a street and then posed for news photographers. Rioters broke nearly every window at a McDonald?s restaurant, which was also set on fire.
Tear gas wafted through the area, and some witnesses picked up rubber bullets fired by police.
Maybe it's because Oakland is so close to Berkeley, and the fans have picked up on their brethren's spirit of non-violent protests for peace (e.g. smashing the windows of the INS)?
What the hell country is this again?
|
| Saturday, January 25, 2003 |
17:40 - Not that liberal
http://bleedingbrain.blogspot.com/2003_01_19_bleedingbrain_archive.html#87999536
|
(top) |
Hmm. Seems Bleeding Brain took exception to my war liberalism post from a few days ago. Apparently my views are terribly discouraging to him, because I advocated different political motivations during different kinds of national situations. Liberalism for peacetime, conservatism for wartime. That kind of thing. He didn't like the insinuation that it's okay to think about liberal goals once the war is over.
Abridged version: "While war looms, let's have conservatives running things so that success can be assured, however, during times of peace, let us go back to liberalism so that societal problems can be ironed out by those who know how to iron."
Liberalism (Leftism) is what GETS US INTO WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Why would we resolve a war at so great a cost and then revert to the insane philosophy that invites attacks on freedom?
Leftist policy makers ignored or appeased Islamic threats that resulted in a sucker punch on the U.S that resulted in the present war conditions. Leftist foolishness handed nuclear weapons to N. Korea and Leftist foolishness handed missile guidance systems to China. The later two are recipes for future wars.
Even worse, leftist thinking fragments our own society and dooms humans to mediocrity and failure.
When the war is over, don?t re-embrace the Democratic Party because of its willingness to squeeze the nation?s teats. Embrace freedom instead. Isn?t that what we are fighting for anyway?
Fair enough. But embracing freedom, when you have achieved freedom, becomes a lot less concrete a thing. That's my point. Once the world has been made safe from terrorism, do we go swagger about the streets and high-five each other and revel in the fact that we've preserved freedom? Sure. But how long can a society keep that up before it just starts to get masturbatory? At what point does it start sounding vaguely silly and alarming, like striptease night at the Springfield Retirement Castle? At what point does it become a parody of itself, like Mexico's "Revolutionary" PRI and the "Democratic People's Republic" of North Korea? (After all, the best proof of the strength of our republic, I think, is that we don't feel the need to advertise like that.) At what point is it appropriate to simply cool it?
Eventually there comes a time when a people has to recognize that their revolution has been successfully defended and the enemy has been dispersed. At that point, it's no longer productive to wave flags and revel in the victory of the people's ideals; it's more productive to look around and see what kind of domestic and diplomatic problems there are that can be tackled, and tackled in such a way as to provide maximum benefit to society while minimizing impact on taxes, the military, guns, and so on. And that's where peacetime liberalism comes from.
I'm not saying we should ignore the Founding Fathers' principles once we're back in stable times. Far from it. If anything, we should study them all the more intently. There's never any call to marginalize our country's core beliefs because they seem like dowdy relics of another time. But there is a time when it doesn't have to always take center stage, because we're confident that it's sturdy enough to stand on its own.
But liberalism can go too far, yes; that is, as Bleeding Brain says, the reason why we're in the shit we're in now with Iraq and al Qaeda and North Korea. I acknowledge that. It's a situation we can lay a lot more firmly at the feet of unthinking, overidealistic, one-world-one-people liberalism with a lot clearer conscience than we could heave it in the face of Reagan and Bush and Lincoln and McDonald's. We show ourselves to value freedom so little that we're willing to compromise it for the sake of more understanding and coexistence, and that sends a much clearer message to humanity's predators than the understanding and coexistence itself does. We show ourselves to be more wussy than principled, which speaks more loudly than our being more friendly than isolationist. We show the world we're a bunch of rich queeny city boys who like to go slumming for a thrill, not a haloed Mother Teresa healing the sick with a touch out of the goodness of our hearts. (Which seems more realistic, anyway, to a non-American viewpoint?) Then we get our skyscrapers knocked down.
The best way to preserve freedom as we know it appears to keep the central government small, firm, and non-intrusive. There are times when such a conservative government ought to allow liberal interests some rein here and there in order to accomplish some advancement that everybody can benefit from; but it'd be a mistake for that government to take the opportunity to itself grow large or liberal. That leads to ruinous policy decisions both foreign and domestic. That way lie dragons.
In any case, I've learned one thing: You try to oversimplify something in order to establish common ground, and you end up pissing off people from both sides.
I'm spending the weekend at a convention full of people who are naturally predilected toward the Left. A midnight comedian (who was excellent in every other way) kept coming back to what he found was his biggest heartfelt laugh-getter: knee-jerk Bush jokes. And every time he made some riff on Bush's stupidity or other far-too-common mocking point, he got thunderous applause from EVERY SINGLE MEMBER of the audience. (Except me. I stood there and sullenly stared at the floor, looking for a good and visibly dramatic opportunity to swish my cape about my shoulders, elevate my nose, and exit.) I worry that the nation's public simply isn't paying attention, and isn't thinking about anything beyond whose jokes are best. So in my attempt to simplify the situation, in my earlier post I was speaking more to a liberal audience than not-- trying to berate those I knew for their knee-jerk-ism while not making it sound like I was rejecting all the admirable goals that do exist on the Left (though, for the more reasonable of them, they're goals which the entire political spectrum ought to agree is worth fighting for). I wanted to present the image of a Way Out for the lefties that I know, a way to break out of the cycle of stupid Bush jokes and take an intelligent position on world politics without facing the inevitable criticism for "joining the Bible-thumpin' rednecks" that they'd probably have to contend with. You know-- it's an "I found an intellectually satisfying, morally consistent and courageous platform that doesn't depend on cutesy slogans and wry irony from comedians for fuel. Why can't you?" kind of thing. I personally have no interest in flip-flopping my politics back to the way I was in high school, as soon as the war is over. But I don't imagine that I will remain rock-steady as times change, either. My whole point is that politics and the appropriateness of various viewpoints ebb and flow over time. Stubborn insistence upon a particular platform can make a guy look steadfast, yes... but add it to the popular predilections of society at a given time, and the reaction can range from healthy checking-and-balancing all the way up to full-blown revolutionary insanity. We've got to be Greenspan-like with our rhetoric. We have to know when to let it have free rein, and know when to reel it back in. We've got to recognize when liberalism is getting to dangerous levels and smack it back down; we've also got to understand when conservatism is running too high to prevent social good from being done, and lower its profile a bit. And we have to recognize those times when one side or the other really ought to be pumped up to its fullest strength in order to accomplish the greatest benefit available to it at a given time.
Sure, perhaps this is just mealy-mouthed refusal on my part to take a stand. But I am looking for common ground here, and I do believe I have a consistent set of principles that I think are appropriate to these times. That's what I'm saying-- I think more people would be attracted to the anti-idiotarian platform if they were freer to subscribe to the idea that politics can change; that refusing to be scandalized by the Monica Lewinsky thing doesn't mean an automatic and permanent contract stipulating hatred of all Republicans; that wanting to see better environmental controls and more gay rights during the 90s does not mean it's okay to put I CAUSED 9/11 bumper stickers on SUVs; that just because Bush can't pronounce "nuclear" or distinguish in public speech between "prosecute" and "persecute" does not mean that the entire premise of a war in Iraq is invalid. (Want to know who else was so miserable a public speaker that he seldom or never did it himself, but instead gave his speeches to a professional orator in order to deliver them? Thomas Jefferson.)
I fully expect those who identify themselves as anti-Idiotarian today will persist in their unity of thought well after the war is over. But how long do people think it'll be before the various factions begin again to drift apart to their respective poles?
|
| Friday, January 24, 2003 |
09:33 - Must... have... poster-sized... version...
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2003-01-24&res=l
|
(top) |
In response to the apparent securing by somebody of the movie rights to Metroid.
|
| Thursday, January 23, 2003 |
01:49 - Totally sweet
http://www.duke-kim.com/korean/
|
(top) |
Okay. So, like... you know the Real Ultimate Power site, the one about ninjas? The purpose of the ninja is to flip out and kill people. An Internet legend in its own time. You know the one.
Well, apparently, it now has spin-offs. Marcus sends me this link: The Official KOREAN GUY page-- part of the new and burgeoning Real Ultimate Power Network! After you finish giggling at the page itself, notice at the bottom that there are links to RealUltimateSororityGirls, RealUltimateBums, and RealUltimateLiquorStoreClerks. (None of these are remotely as funny, however. More's the pity.)
I don't think I've seen one of these proto-web-ring-things-that-got-away-from-people since the old Mr. T Ate My Balls phenomenon, which seemed to peak in around 1997...
|
| Wednesday, January 22, 2003 |
09:40 - The Terrible Secret of Parody
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=5353
|
(top) |
There's got to be a lesson in here somewhere.
I wondered, when Charles Johnson posted this parody news item about the Arab League condemning the launching of Israeli Ilan Ramon into space (along with that drawing of the Earth from space by that kid who died in the Holocaust), whether he should have been just a bit more clear about the fact that it was a parody.
In Gaza City today, thousands of Palestinians marched in the streets, many firing weapons into the air. "With our blood and our souls, we will strike the orbital Zionists," chanted the protestors. Sheikh Yermani-Makr, appearing on Palestinian television, said, "It is not enough that the unbelievers have come on our land, but now they also take our heavens? How can this be permitted?" Palestinian youths also took to the streets in Nablus, chanting, "One! two! Where's the Arab manned space program?" In Nablus, three Palestinian youths were dragged through the streets by members of the al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade, who accused them of being "collaborators." Witnesses said that the teenagers were heard making positive statements about the American science fiction program Star Trek, several of whose main characters were played by Jewish actors. Reports of the teenagers having received "atomic wedgies" were unconfirmed.
After all, the human ability to fail to identify satire is something that's always amazed me. And it's all made the worse by the fact that so many news items these days have to carry disclaimers to assure readers that they're not parodies. Some things are just too ridiculous to take seriously-- even when they're true.
Case in point: Remember this?
July 24, 1997
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- No one expects to lose much sleep over it but, for the record, NASA has been sued by three men from Yemen for invading Mars.
The three say they own the red planet, and claim they have documents to prove it.
"We inherited the planet from our ancestors 3,000 years ago," they told the weekly Arabic-language newspaper Al-Thawri, which published the report Thursday.
Adam Ismail, Mustafa Khalil and Abdullah al-Umari filed the lawsuit in San'a, Yemen, and presented documents to the country's prosecutor general which they say proves their claim. There was no word on whether they had paid the appropriate inheritance taxes.
And no, that was not a parody. Which should go without saying-- it was, after all, on CNN.
But apparently people as highly placed as Israel's ambassador to France were taken in by Johnson's ruse, and are citing it in interviews for news columns.
But as usual the Arab League which during its history and since the day of its foundation never missed an occasion, to miss an occasion which would contribute to the peace, hastened to publish a press release whose its silly thing seems to have reached paroxysm and a level of stupidity which exceeds all its preceding records.
You know... much has been made about the advantages bloggers have over traditional media, in terms of speed of coverage, and willingness to tackle certain issues before the old media is able to overcome whatever bias it has in order to cover them properly. Bloggers had the Muhammad/Malvo story and Trent Lott's gaffe and countless other developments covered long before they resolved themselves in national headlines.
But this, I guess, would be the downside: people who can't tell the difference between bloggers and traditional media, mixed with bloggers who are perhaps a little more willing than they should be to post parody items with little in the way of disclaimers. Don't get me wrong-- I certainly don't want to see bloggers have to hold themselves to some kind of universal standard of journalistic integrity or whatever-- the lack of such a thing is what makes blogs what they are. But we all just have to bear in mind: there are idiots in the world, and easily confused people, and people who love to jump to conclusions. And there's no telling how high a misunderstanding might go-- or how much damage it might cause-- before someone figures it out.
|
| Monday, January 20, 2003 |
23:03 - Seanbaby, Watching While You Sleep
http://www.thewavemag.com/pagegen.php?pagename=article&articleid=22887
|
(top) |
To help get this year started off right, the inimitable Seanbaby has been inspired to action (or maybe coerced), and now has a roundup of truly mind-bending frivolous lawsuits to guffaw at.
Eighteen years ago, John Duggan was convicted to life in prison for beating his wife to death. And how did the prison staff reward him for this? By putting his money into a zero-interest prison account! This wicked deed will not go unpunished, and with justice on his side, John is now suing the prison system for an undisclosed amount of money he feels he would have earned through proper investment. Despite the possible loss of funds, the prison is still finding new ways to improve conditions. In fact, right after the announcement of the lawsuit, the prison guards announced a new holiday, Free Knife For Everyone Except John Duggan Day.
This guy frightens me, he's so good.
|
| Saturday, January 18, 2003 |
02:51 - What a Day
|
(top) |
So I spent the day today out with friends-- hiking and taking photos, seeking out interesting restaurants, and hanging around with the guys while they drew comics and let me write sarcastic commentary in the panel boundaries. The evening's auditory accompaniment was mostly hours of insane laughter.
But it started out not too auspiciously; a peek at one friend's blog (which I won't link here) showed me his ultra-clever juxtaposition of Bush's head with a compost heap ("the only post Bush is fit for"). So I was morose and tight-lipped for a good half an hour, until I managed to put it out of my mind with an effort of will, as well as the thought that in San Francisco and DC and Europe and Iraq and the West Bank and Syria and everywhere, every last gunport of the knee-jerk anti-war, anti-Bush activism machine would today be flung wide open. And yet I somehow knew that it would turn out to be so incoherent, vapid, morally shallow, and generally based on nothing more than inane slogans ("Bush iz st00pid!!!11!``") as to be unlikely to really put forth any real unified platform that meant anything. (Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that I was up in San Francisco last night, discovering afresh the hell-for-any-kind-of-motor-vehicle-that-isn't-a-bus that is Market Street, trapped at each no-left-turn-here arrow while trying desperately to find a way to get left, with nothing to do but look at the signs exhorting participants to the coming rally that would convene there in the morning, and to listen to NPR's coverage of the Freedom Riders heading up to DC from Mississippi. They passed the phone around the bus, from a guy who thinks Bush is a shrieking monkey who obviously can't tie his own shoelaces, to a girl who opposes war because violence is bad and stuff, and plus she has a husband in the army, to a 60-year-old lady who is convinced that there are better ways to solve our problems than fisticuffs. The interviewer tried to pose some interesting questions, like why the hell they're riding a bus to the nation's capital to wave signs demanding love and respect for Saddam Hussein and the deposition of our own President, when we know exactly what kind of hell we'd be condeming the Iraqi people to if we did nothing; but their best response was that those kinds of things were best dealt with at the political level, not by blowing up innocent civilians. And then they hung up.)
So I had the feeling that the world would have its little day of insanity, but then it would end, and everything would go back to normal. And I was able to relax and have fun for the remainder of the day.
So it turns out that the protests turned out pretty much as I expected; a bunch of sloganeers out for a good ol' protestin' day like they heard their parents had back in the Sixties, with such oh-so-clever sentiments as GOD BLESS IRAQ and NO BLOOD FOR OIL. The best that can be said for them, apparently, is that some of them pledged to be open to the idea of war if proof of Iraq's threat were produced. That's the most coherent facet of the whole movement, and the whole movement's credibility will hinge on how that facet gleams when it's turned toward the light. Put up or shut up, in other words.
Meanwhile, France appears to have found a new way to surrender-- devoting tons of government money towards subsidies of mosques, trading the separation of church and state for a little bit of appeasement. Oh, how that warms the cockles of my heart.
All this-- the protests everywhere, the slogans, the vitriol, Saddam's speech thanking his friends on Market Street and the Mall, and so on are contingent upon the US being wrong about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and a secret nuclear program. We must be wrong, after all. We in the US have such a terrible track record when it comes to choosing sides on big, world-altering issues. We were wrong about rule by royalty, choosing the losing side of democracy. We were wrong about crushing the Confederacy and ending slavery. We were wrong about fascism, it would seem. We were wrong about communism. We continue to be wrong about global markets, socialism, gun freedom, and all those other little things we continue to be so misguided about, while the rest of the world-- who has country-by country made so many right choices over the years when it came to things like Hitler and Stalinism-- gets to lecture us sternly on our inexperienced, presumptuous ways. We can't possibly know what we're doing. Just because the world has eventually come to agree on our values and decisions in just about every major area doesn't mean a thing, you see; America is still wrong, and the rest of the world is right. Because they said so, that's why.
And they say Iraq is peachy-keen. Saddam doesn't have any weapons of mass destruction, they say; and besides, even if he did, which they're not saying he does, he deserves them! Hey, someone's got to give those Yanks the come-uppance they've been cruising for all these many years? Someone's got to take the wind out of their sails! Who do they think they are, traipsing in here and showing the world how a nation goes about being successful and prosperous without ever having to undergo a violent revolution or reversal of any of the basic principles upon which it was founded, ever since the first President took office? Just because it's unique among nations in being the same sort of country today as it was in 1776, does that mean it's doing anything right? Shyeah. As if.
Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction, Cowboy Buddy. Trust us.
Well, we say: No.
I tell ya. If only the world were in more capable hands than ours, huh?
|
| Friday, January 17, 2003 |
15:59 - Stubbornly San Franciscan
|
(top) |
Well, I'm going to be incommunicado for a few hours-- I'll be up in North Beach for a performance of Beach Blanket Babylon. While the civilized world's opinion of San Francisco crumbles around us, I'll be clinging to one of the most bizarre memes to ever have attempted to define the city experience. Westward ho!
UPDATE: Okay, well, then again... perhaps BBB doesn't so much attempt to define the San Francisco experience as... uh, as just do a bunch of stuff with really huge elaborate hats. Fair enough... now I know better. And I've also got a better idea of the geography of North Beach/Little Italy... which I'm sure will stand me in good stead should I have a need to show someone around.
|
| Thursday, January 16, 2003 |
01:53 - Oh, right, it's that time of year again...
|
(top) |
One more thing before I turn in. (Closing time for my inbox just never seems to roll around.)
As most of my friends know, the end of January sees me trying harder than at any other time of the year to dig up pretexts for rebelling against the football-fueled fervor of loud cacophonic whooping caroming its way up the stairs while I hide out in the crawl space. Each year I try a new tack, hoping for better results than last time. Well, here we go-- a little something from a posting on the ever-entertaining Ar-Rahman list:
A Religious Injunction Regarding Football Given by a Particular Jurist
This is an extremely fine matter to comment on. Many jurists, such as Mufti-e-Azam of Pakistan, Moulana Rashid Ahmed Ludhyanwi have gone to the extreme. His point of view is as follows: Firstly, he defines the words `physical exercise' into two. a) One which is apparently linked with jihad. b) And one which has no apparent link. Mufti Rashid Saheb places football in the latter category. He then goes on to state, "For football to be permissible, due to it being linked with the latter group of physical activities, there are many pre-requital conditions, which need to be studied. Firstly, there are three conditions: 1. There should be no physical or financial loss. 2. The person who takes part in such activities, himself, should not be encountering any loss, nor those who are participating with him. 3. The aspect of futile entertainment should not be dominant. For the former two conditions he puts forward two ahaadith from which he puts forward his deductions. The Holy Prophet has stated: "Every play from which pleasure is gained is baseless (impermissible) apart from the practicing of bows and the training of horses or playing with his wife. Verily, these are permissible."
I'll be sure to let the guys in the living room know this on Super Bowl Sunday. I'm sure it'll go over real well.
UPDATE: Ayn Rand wouldn't make a very good mufti. (Thanks to Josh Ellison for the link!)
|
|
00:35 - PunditPundit
|
(top) |
You know all those little questionnaire things you find online that allow you to look up your porn-star name, your Jedi name, your gangsta name, and so on? (According to which I'm respectively known as Christopher Colony, Tiebr Feuki, and Stupid-ass Pond Swimma?)
Well, why not a Blogger Name Generator? You know, like _____Pundit. We'd get such worthy entries as CitricAcidPundit, TartarControlDuffPundit, CrimeanWarPundit, PottedPalmPundit, uh... PakledPundit...
Okay, maybe this wasn't such a good idea after all. C'mon, gimme a break.
I guess it seems like it's the night for experimentation. Lileks is doing it, at least-- he's Bleating in blog format this time, and if anyone ought to be able to get away with calling himself SpringfieldPundit or something along those lines, it's him.
(Good show, but I think James forgot to note that when you do things in blog format, you can't do things like make sense and have internal consistency and throw and catch your literary devices. This is like watching Jose Canseco get picked for one of the teams in a Little League game. Or something.)
For my part, even with all the world's events, I couldn't work up a head of steam to write anything today; but I did add a link icon to Dave Hyatt's Safari blog (at right) so I can have some thematic baggage to carry around with me. As a gun-rights supporter who can't tell a Glock from a bottle of Smith & Wesson oil, I'm right out of the running for the more popular blog bumper stickers (at least, popular in the linkage circles in which I seem to travel). So I gotta take what opportunities for personality I can get.
Maybe I should try to put up more "grotto 11" stuff, and maybe even elucidate just what the hell it is that means. (Trust me, you wouldn't be any more enlightened if I told you.)
Or maybe I just need some sleep. Yeah. That sounds like one helluvan idea.
|
| Monday, January 13, 2003 |
09:51 - The Future is Already Installed
http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/03/0103/010303.html#011303
|
(top) |
Whoo. Lileks has devoted most of today's Bleatage to detailing his experience with a piece of benighted PC movie-editing software. Usually he seems to try to keep the direct specific software-fisking of post-iApp PC software to oblique sidelong references, and I don't blame him; given his experiences, and those of any Mac user who knows, who knows from first-hand experience that there is a better way than the fighting and swearing and throwing up of hands in frustration reported over drinks by one's dinner partners... and given the all-too common reaction of said dinner partners if you meekly raise your hand and say, "Um... 'scuse me, but... Macs aren't like that," he has every reason to be discreet about it like we've all learned to be in order to maintain mealtime civility and avoid getting a "ETYLOCAM" branding iron in the ass.
But the iMovie-pretender software he talks about, it seems to me, is the kind of thing to bring a guy's defenses down, come hell or derision. Software like this does that to a guy. This is the product of a wasted afternoon devoted to learning useless crap about an application that shouldn't have any such useless crap to learn about it, if it had been designed properly. And yet, it's interesting: so many PC users are so resigned to this kind of wrestling with their software, on a daily basis, that it doesn't make them anywhere near as pissed-off as someone steeped in Mac software gets when venturing into that world, armed with some technical know-how but handicapped by a presumption-- completely flawed in the PC world, it seems-- that the software maker is not malicious, that the app developers aren't trying to take out their own frustrations on the user, that the companies in question actually want to help the user do something.
It's a perfectly reasonable assumption out here in the ghetto, but it leads to nuclear explosions of the head when you cross over. And, oddly, it's the PC users who are afraid of the unaccustomed weirdness of Macs, not the other way around.
Brooks' The Mythical Man-Month talked about how software development flouted the traditional rules of manufacturing and R&D, how if you threw more men at a job, it became more late, not less-- largely because software is something that only highly savvy individuals with an intimate knowledge of other highly savvy individuals' areas of expertise can produce, where cooperation and willingness to code to a standard must wrestle with each engineer's personal flair and cleverness. No semi-skilled labor here. It's a bunch of mavericks all trying to write to their own visions of the future, and the more such people you fling into an already-late project, it'll just make it worse.
Eventually every manager and CS student in the world had read that book, and it became standard operating practice. But it still only addressed the side of developing functionality, shipping on time, that sort of thing. Its lessons-- that software is something inherently different, that has to be developed with priorities that aren't obvious or intuitive to the manager-- haven't been taken to heart yet in so much of the computer industry, in the areas of usability and design. Software makers still seem to assume that focusing on user-interface, writing software that abstracts itself toward enabling an ability rather than on remaining software that the user has to learn, is still a luxury that's unnecessary to invest in. And they're right, really, because the PC market doesn't follow Brooks' observations either: it moves and ebbs and flows based on price and feature set, qualities that seem intuitively obvious to most consumers as being of paramount importance, because they are of paramount importance in every other kind of product. And what that leads to, tragically, is companies that write software toward the goals of price and feature set while shelving the whole making it easy and enjoyable to use and obscuring unnecessary technical esoterica from the user chimaerae. They're not necessary. Customers will learn to cope. They'll buy the software 'cause it's cheaper and has more checkboxes and more function buttons on the main screen; sure, they'll only use the software once and then abandon their digital filmmaking careers. But that's not our concern! We just gotta sell 'em that one boxed copy and make it just useful enough that he'll feel too guilty to return it for a refund.
Computers are something different. They have to be treated differently. Price and checkboxes will only get you a half-solution, and traditional solutions on the R&D end will only solve more price-and-checkboxes problems. Not the usability problem.
In order to create usability, you've got to invest in UI development-- an enterprise that probably won't directly earn you any money, because most of the industry's consumers don't buy software based on usability, much though they might caw about wanting software to be "easy". (People get software with their scanners or cameras, and that's what they learn to use. Or don't.) You've got to make the decision to write not to the known money-making goals of price and checkbox items, but instead to the intagible goal of making the software do stuff intuitively and correctly. Now, this won't necessarily make your company any more money, and it'll cost a lot. It's not necessarily good business. But it is what serves the customer, whether it be good business or not. To put it into "prisoner's dilemma" terms, you've got to "collaborate" in order to serve the customer; you've got to take a hit for the team. You've got to invest in an area where it's not intuitively beneficial to the company to invest. And if all the companies in the world did that, they'd be subject to being undercut by one company that "cheated"-- selling software that it chose to write toward price and checkboxes. Guess which product customers will buy?
A company that chooses to stick to the intangibles and make products that only 5% of the public can properly appreciate is "collaborating" even when the whole rest of the world is "cheating"; they know they're dooming themselves to a tiny sliver of the market. But they do have the right idea, and as long as they continue to exist, there's some reason to believe there's hope for the industry-- that some people, some engineers and managers and designers in the field, do care enough about usability and serving the consumer as to forgo large market share and profits in favor of those elusive ideals.
People wonder why we Mac users are so obnoxiously self-satisfied and smug when we talk about this sort of thing. Well, I'm sure everybody's been in some position or other at some point in life where you see that Hey! Everybody's doing everything all wrong! Can't they see that?! -- and yet you can't wave your arms and yell enough to get anybody's attention. The best you can hope for is to be called a troublemaker, a rabble-rouser, a malcontent, some snobby geek who's living in a dream world.
But you can't just remain silent, knowing what you know, can you?
I'll say this for his machine, though: if he ever wants to back up that 3.3 GB movie file on floppy disks, he's all set.
Yep. It's sure got that checkbox nailed.
|
| Friday, January 10, 2003 |
09:29 - Make no mistake! Okay, maybe a few.
http://www.lssu.edu/banished/current/default.html
|
(top) |
Judson forwards me this list of LSSU's Banished Words for 2003. I'm gonna be looking forward to these every year; last year's were lots of fun as well. Give it a look; I absolutely agree with the nominations of "Make no mistake", as well as "Extreme" (you listening, Apple? Better than Togo's, though, who say "Make your lunch extreeeeeme! ... which means putting avocado on your sandwich), and "as per".
Judson would add "At the end of the day" and "the fact of the matter". Yeah, good call. (Hey, maybe "good call" should be in there too.)
As for myself, I'd love to see a ban on the inappropriate use of "apropos", which outnumbers appropriate usage in the media by about 90/10. But I disagree with the inclusion of "branding"-- while it sounds like a hijacked term being used for a trumped-up purpose, I'd argue that it actually means something concrete these days, a whole branch of business. Someone on NPR yesterday was talking about the difference between a "brand" and a "company"-- the former is fun, hip, and has loyal customers; the latter is work, boring, and has employees and shareholders. Might be the only way to save the New Economy companies from falling prey to a new return to strict control of non-work-related conversation and activities and lax dress codes and work hours, as is already happening in a German design firm, under the tutelage of a woman whose book Fun is Out is apparently taking the business world by storm.
I'll keep my friendly work environment and my "branding", thank you very much.
|
| Thursday, January 9, 2003 |
03:12 - Next Stop: Premium Blend
|
(top) |
A while back, I noted the marked lack in the Islamic world of that staple of modern society that we take so much for granted here and now, self-effacing humor. I said (or implied) that a social group has only really "arrived" when it produces a universally-known celebrity figure who uses self-referential humor to mock his very group, and thus to validate its strength and resiliency. If you know your group can stand up to the acid test of a home-grown stand-up comic's roasting, then you give it that roasting and let the world see how well it does. I wondered where the Muslim version of Chris Rock, Ellen DeGeneres, and Yakov Smirnoff was.
Well, just now I got an e-mail from Shahed of the alt.muslim newsgroup/website; he passed me two links as evidence of Muslim comics who are gaining an appreciative following. The first one has a number of links to various comics and humor sites, inclding a Muslim version of The Onion. (Really.) And the other one focuses on comedienne Shazia Mirza, whose act evidently is a big hit in Europe (particularly in Germany, where audiences reportedly like her because she reminds them of Hitler; ohh-kay).
Mirza's background necessitates finding new ground - after all, you can't do many gags about being drunk and stoned when your religion demands abstention - and the material based on that culture is easily the strongest. She does have other gags that do not rely on her faith, but these are not always as assured.
Interesting. I'd like to see this.
|
|
02:24 - "Missiled about Islam?"
|
(top) |
While I was down in Atlanta over the weekend, I saw that at the LaVista Road exit near where my brother lives, there's a huge billboard towering over the freeway interchange. Against a backdrop of a US flag, it said in enormous letters, "Misled about Islam?" (My brother's wife said she always sees that first word as "Missiled" for some reason.)
The billboard was an ad for the site WhyIslam.org, and purported to present the facts regarding Islam as a countermeasure against the ill-founded rumors and assumptions being spread in the post-9/11 world. This is the kind of thing I've been hoping to see for a long time: an "outreach" site with large, mainstream advertisement, presenting a clear message for average-Joe consumption.
And I checked out the site; as a matter of fact, it does seem to be what it claims to be. It's nice and friendly, speaking to an American non-Muslim audience, and seems to make a game attempt to be fair and balanced in the facts it presents. Certainly the face it puts on Islam is a very smiley one, but I suppose that's par for the course.
I found myself thinking, though: How far would I have to look through the site before I ran into the inevitable moral-equivalence rhetoric? How many clicks does it take to get to the center of an Islamic outreach website? One... two-hoo-hoo... thrrree...
Turns out the answer is one. Click on the "More>>>" link at the bottom of the main page, and you get an essay centered on the following charming sentiment:
The word terrorism came into wide usage only a few decades ago. One of the unfortunate results of this new terminology is that it limits the definition of terrorism to that perpetrated by small groups or individuals. Terrorism, in fact, spans the entire world, and manifests itself in various forms. Its perpetrators do not fit any stereotype. Those who hold human lives cheap, and have the power to expend human lives, appear at different levels in our societies. The frustrated employee who kills his colleagues in cold-blood or the oppressed citizen of an occupied land who vents his anger by blowing up a school bus are terrorists who provoke our anger and revulsion. Ironically however, the politician who uses age-old ethnic animosities between peoples to consolidate his position, the head of state who orders “carpet bombing” of entire cities, the exalted councils that choke millions of civilians to death by wielding the insidious weapon of sanctions, are rarely punished for their crimes against humanity.
Sigh.
But aside from that, the site is pretty even-handed, and in any case I'm glad to see that this kind of outreach is taking place, even though I had to go to Georgia to find it. I wonder why that is? I'm sure it isn't simply that huge billboards are more common down there...
|
|
19:47 - Bring On the Cultural Studies
|
(top) |
It was only a matter of time after the hippie movements of the 60s became the subject of master's theses by people who were too young to have lived through it.
Now, it seems, it's become the "in thing" in journalism and academia to latch onto any old phenomenon/fad/movement and elevate it to the level of Transcendentalism or Socratic philosophy.
I refer to the report which was on NPR this afternoon, on All Things Considered, on otaku-- anime fans. It centered on the manga-zine Shonen Jump, which is launching a US-produced, fully English-language edition (though it still reads right-to-left, so as not to offend the purists) to sell to a new generation of anime consumers in the West.
Now, this is fine: I have no problem with anime as a genre or an art form. I myself don't like the art style-- it's a point against any given anime show or movie, not a point in favor of it, and I'll watch a good piece of anime in spite of the art style, as long as the story is good. The anime I enjoy most is the stuff that doesn't look so much like anime: Miyazaki films, Cowboy Bebop, that sort of thing.
But what I don't understand is this: Why is it that what so many people absolutely adore about anime, even among the supposedly intellectual youth who make up the biggest lump in the money-to-be-made distribution curve, is so pathetically insipid?
Maybe the report was focusing on the wrong part of the anime convention it covered; it wouldn't be the first time. But in quoting its financial figures for the mainstreaming of anime, it cited the fact that what we now had was a generation who had spent their pre-teen years watching Pokémon... and now they'd outgrown it, and now were watching Yu-Gi-Oh, which obviously is a much more grown-up show.
Um. 'Scuse me? Do these journalists realize what Yu-Gi-Oh is? It's a show about a bunch of kids who have duels using magical playing cards. Playing cards. As in, cards that you can go and buy and collect. Each episode (though I'll admit only to having seen a brief glimpse) is just another set of duels, with canned power-up sequences and florid taunting language and statistics that make it clear which cards to buy-- no story any deeper than that. No grander vision. It's an even more blatant piece of manufactured merchandising pap than Pokémon was, and that's saying something. Coupled with the report's characterization of the anime convention being filled with 15-to-17-year-olds blowing their life savings on Yu-Gi-Oh stuff, this thing even makes the "Chinpokomon" episode of South Park look like yesterday's news.
And naturally, the whole otaku movement was being presented as the Next Big Thing: in an onrush of sociopolital irony, today's disaffected youth are reaching out for a non-American art form to call their own, a culture that's patently alien to adopt instead of the bland and boring one they were spoon-fed before the Saturday-morning saviors came to call. Now they have a generational identity! They have a language all their own! They have a culture that's defined as a wilful mixture of influences, and isn't that remarkable? Isn't that meaningful? Isn't this somehow a microcosm of our whole lack-of-direction-as-a-people-in-the-world-community thing? Can we write our master theses on this yet?
Now, far be it from me to rag on the devotees of some obsession that I don't understand, nor on their self-fulfilling behavior at conventions full of like-minded souls. Believe me, I understand it all too well.
But I'm just at a loss to understand one little thing: When was it that I became so old and out of touch with the minds of my fellow human beings that I can't even begin to comprehend the attraction of something utterly vapid that makes slobbering acolytes out of otherwise fully functional humans of at least average intelligence? When did Yu-Gi-Oh become a surrogate for C.S. Lewis or Walden?
|
| Wednesday, January 8, 2003 |
13:48 - Hammer and Tongs
http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/01/07.html#safari_review
|
(top) |
Aimed at web designers and CSS-heads, Mark Pilgrim has posted a detailed set of observations on Safari and what it does and does not do properly. It looks as though it might become sort of a clearing-house page for these kinds of observations, as it has links to numerous test cases and other sites' reviews, as well as updates from readers (which include Safari developers, who are clearly very interested in following-up on any compliance test cases they can find to work on).
So far, what I've seen encourages me quite a bit. It turns out that most of the bugginess I've seen only occurs on the first run-time; subsequent times you run the program, after it's created its various pref files and things, are much smoother. And I'm seeing mounting evidence that Apple is ravenous about gathering feedback about this thing so they can improve it to prime-time quality before release.
All I really need is some kind of text focus and navigability in drop-down <SELECT> menus, and I'll be able to use it just fine.
Incidentally: it turns out that the problem with my own blog page in Safari was that the <PRE> block up above had the following form:
<FONT SIZE=-2><PRE> ... </PRE></FONT>
But Safari is more strict about style than IE or other browsers, on this issue; it interprets <PRE> as a complete font override, and so it ignored my <FONT> setting. (This happens in <TT> blocks as well.) I changed it to:
<PRE><FONT SIZE=-2> ... </FONT></PRE>
...And now it's fine.
|
| Tuesday, January 7, 2003 |
00:17 - Long Day
|
(top) |
Up early this morning to catch the Stevenote, and up to the City this evening for what has to have been the fastest-passing three hours of my life: the dinner with the Bay Area bloggers and others who happen to be in the neighborhood for MacWorld and such.
So I got to meet Mike Silverman, Bill Quick, Stefan Sharkansky, Andrew the Punning Pundit, and a couple of heaping handfuls of other notables whose names eluded me over the course of the steak (which was, by the way, excellent). And it was a blast. The discussions ranged all over, from vegetarianism to Macs to Bush to Simpsons quotes and back. A pretty broad spectrum of opinions were in evidence, and I would have loved to see a transcription of the multitude of threads flowing back and forth across the table, occasionally rising to shrill cries of "That's because you're a fucking socialist!" and "That is the most wrong thing I've ever heard in my entire life!" My most treasusured memory, though, will have to be that whenever one of these good-natured near-explosions about rent control or public transit or welfare or slaughterhouses rocked the table, someone would meekly interject, "So-- how about those Palestinians?" You know, steering it back to a nice safe topic on which we could all agree.
We oughtta do this kind of thing more often.
UPDATE: Stefan Sharkansky has posted photos.
|
| Sunday, January 5, 2003 |
01:10 - Shut up, Brian
|
(top) |
You know how they tend to create names for literary genres by taking a word that describes what makes up a genre and adding "a"-- like "erotica", "Americana", "Judaica", and so on?
I think they should have one of those genres for autobiographies, diaries, personal journals, and the like.
They could call it "diarya".
|
|
00:30 - I'm back
|
(top) |
Well, that weekend went pretty well. A few random notes...
Because of the recent weird weather patterns we've been having around here, planes taking off from San Jose International have been taking a southerly flight path rather than the usual northerly one. This means that when we took off on Thursday, on the steep power-climb out of the airport, we banked almost directly over my South San Jose neighborhood. From what must have been about 4,000 feet, I could clearly see my little circular street-- and not only could I make out my house, I could make out my car. Quite an unexpected treat.
On both legs of the journey eastward, there were what I believe to have been federal air marshals. I don't know what I was expecting-- presumably some guys in white shirts, pressed slacks, and dark glasses with those little curly wires coming out from behind their ears. But these guys on the flights I was on looked distinctly... military. Shaved heads. Green uniforms with large gold "US" lapel pins. No more than about 19 years of age, from the look of them. And considering that the guy on the second leg (MPLS to Atlanta), who sat next to me, spent the flight time writing love notes to his girlfriend and sleeping, I'd say that they're still working out the kinks in the system. (In addition to the guy next to me, there were two others who sat further up the plane, on opposite sides of the aisle, and looked decidedly more alert.)
So then there was Atlanta, which was a lot of fun. Friday morning I dropped off my brother Mike at his job at 7:30 (a part of the clock I haven't seen in years, in any time zone), and took his car off east of the city, parked it, and went bounding up Stone Mountain to catch the tail-end of a protracted overcast-baffled sunrise. Quite a place, that-- it's the "Mount Rushmore of the South", with images of all the Confederate heroes carved into the granite rock face. There's a gondola to the top, where ATLA is painted in huge yellow letters along with a giant yellow arrow pointing in the direction of the Atlanta skyline. (It must have been put there like in the 30s; it's not exactly a mystery to pilots today where Atlanta might be.)
Saturday we (Mike, his wife Julie, and I) went up to Tallulah Gorge, where they filmed the sniper scene from Deliverance. It had what has to have been the most studly trail I've ever been on: the top part is edged with boards, and the actual trail surface is made of a rubber mat recycled from old tires and molded to look sort of like pine needles. The result is a surface that's springy to walk on, and very clean-looking. Then, below one of the upper overlooks, there's a huge long staircase section-- some 1500 steps or so-- down to the bottom of the gorge. (There's a massively overengineered suspension footbridge in the middle, which I'll post some pictures of as soon as Mike gets them developed; more fool me for forgetting my digital camera!) The stairs are all very new and sturdy; the only problem is getting back up them after you've descended the thousand feet into the gorge...
Then we went to the Mall of Georgia (not really competition for the Mall of America, don't worry-- pretty cool nonetheless) to see The Lion King in IMAX. Not much to say here, except that... well, you know. Maybe I'll expand further on that subject at some other date.
And today we spent some time driving around downtown Atlanta, Piedmont Park, and related environs (where for the price of a run-down Sunnyvale bungalow, one can buy the biggest mansion in Mansionland); the flight home was air-marshal-less, but it did get me stuck in Detroit where it was freezing-rain conditions and we had to trudge thr plane through the de-icing pad, where they doused us with detergent, making us an hour late getting back into San Jose. But hey, I'm not complaining, right? I'm back home now, and all's well again.
...OR IS IT?
|
| Thursday, January 2, 2003 |
16:00 - <clap clap clap>
|
(top) |
Just bloggin' from the Minneapolis airport, because I had to make a note of the fact that the connecting Northwest flight to Columbus, Ohio has flight number... 1492.
Cute... very cute.
Oh, and the airport has an observation deck tower. Yeah, this place is pretty nice indeed.
|
| Wednesday, January 1, 2003 |
03:45 - Back on Sunday
|
(top) |
I'll be flying to Georgia tomorrow morning to visit my brother and his wife, conveying the last straggling remnants of Christmas that keep me from being able to pack up the wrapping paper for another year into the Deep South. I understand they have electricity and telly-o-phone down there these days; however, I don't foresee that I'll have any ability to blog until I'm back on Sunday.
(Ow! Ow! Sorry! I was kidding!)
Anyway, see y'all then.
|
|
16:36 - De Beers Summarized in 29 Kilobytes
|
(top) |
(Originally posted on Fark, sent via Marcus.)
Lance says this needs to be made into a poster.
Now do pardon me; there's a sunset to go and watch.
|
|
04:10 - Good night, moon; good night, stars; good night, police sirens
|
(top) |
Well, once more the big shiny ball has dropped more or less without incident; no terrorist attacks, no massive computer glitches, no ball getting stuck, and certainly no actual dropping of the ball from the specified height at the precise moment when gravity would cause it to reach bottom in free-fall right at the tickover point. (Didn't they used to do it that way? What happened, did someone sue Discover and the Times because dropping the ball according to the laws of nature and science was insensitive to the beliefs of the platygaeists, or that the "apple" imagery cruelly drove millions of helpless innocents to gorge themselves on fast food and become enormous flesh-bags, or to buy computers they didn't need and couldn't afford but looked cool in the den?)
Yeah, pretty low-key New Year's, overall-- maybe it's because I spent the four-hour time chunk straddling midnight watching the Adult Swim marathon and playing with my new EyeTV. (Think TiVo for the Mac; it's a soft DTR system, of which I'm sure there are examples for the PC. A little plastic box takes RF or RCA input from cable or antenna, encodes it to MPEG on the fly, and streams it over USB to the machine's hard drive, where it can be accessed directly and interacted with via actual integrated software, instead of having to deal with the set-top middleman. Seems to work pretty well, barring a few glitches-- not least of which is the moronicity of MPEG and its inability to be properly demuxed for editing, like any sane movie format would be. But the whole direct-control-of-live-TV-through-an-onscreen-floater-remote thing is pretty neato.)
Incidentally, on an unrelated note, it's been "Encore Week" on Fresh Air on NPR, and the other day they re-aired the infamous Gene Simmons interview in which the tongue man cut loose with all his frankness on Terry Gross, unleashing both barrels of his I-slept-with-4,600-women-and-you-too-could-be-one-of-them, in which Terry came off as a good deal less sure of herself and capable of handling the reins of the interview than Gene did. But one thing I thought was interesting was that Gene, for all his Howard Stern-esque lewdness and arrogance, has some very strict personal observances and limits, and they're self-imposed rather than derived from some non-corporeal power (which would have been a good excuse, considering that he had attended Yeshiva as a kid and was well on his way to becoming a rabbi). He's so vehemently anti-drug and anti-smoking that, as he said, the most beautiful and seductive woman in the world could be lying right on his bed-- but if he smelled that dirt-under-the-bleachers smell on her breath, she'd find herself chucked right out the door, if not the window. Gene said he's never been drunk-- and with the exception of a few valiant attempts at taking a sip here and there during toasts (in order to be polite), he's never been capable of drinking alcohol. "I might be cursed with some kind of freakish one-in-a-million defect," he said, "but the very smell of alcohol makes me gag. And I'd say that makes me very, very lucky." So whatever else might be true about the guy, I guess I can say that at least he's not the only one to "suffer" from that particular malady.
So while I listen to the police chase down late-night carousers out in the neighborhood at the edge of hearing, I'll take my leave of the good blog-posting page and curl up with my new "The Art of Spirited Away" book and be glad I'm not out in it.
Happy New Year, and to all a good night.
|
| Tuesday, December 31, 2002 |
09:42 - Random thought
|
(top) |
You know, under most circumstances I really like classic rock. It's what I have on my radio every morning to get me out of bed.
But I've just got to say this: I am really sick of songs whose choruses consist solely of the same line (usually the title of the song) repeated four times.
Thirty days in the hole Thirty days in the hole Thirty days in the hole Thirty days in the hole
Sheer genius, man. Seriously, have a little bit of imagination. I guess I could understand if the music on this kind of chorus was something to get excited about, but it's not-- it's just a plodding workmanlike chord progression. It's like the chorus is just a placeholder to stick in between verses, and the less interesting you make it, the fewer neurons you waste on what could be a good song you might eventually squeeze out.
Okay, I'm done now.
|
|