themic

2003-03-27T07:23:00.000-05:00

Well, it seems almost silly and pointless to bash Michael Moore, given that he got booed quite forcefully by HOLLYWOOD.

Still, though, I can't resist when I come across something like this. David Edelstein says:

"Nothing has ever shaken my faith in my own politics like having Michael Moore in the same camp."

2003-03-27T06:58:00.000-05:00

Everyone should take note of this background article about the Kurds, by one of my personal heros Robert Kaplan. Keep in mind this was written in 1987, before OUR first Gulf War.

Perched on isolated slopes, amid oak and mountain ash, Kurdish guerrillas known as pesh mergas ("those who are prepared to die") have in recent years wiped out whole units of Turkish and Iraqi soldiers and Iranian revolutionary guards.

As the first row of domed, yellowy hills appeared on the horizon, rippling upward from the desert floor in northeastern Iraq, my Kurdish driver glanced back at the desert, sucked his tongue in disdain, and said, "Arabistan." Then, looking toward the hills, he murmured, "Kurdistan," and his eyes lit up.

The article provides some key insight into the very special land nad people there, and why this is a unique problem that has never been solved by state lines and governments before.

2003-03-21T16:41:00.000-05:00

Found this via Instapundit. William Saletan of Slate on today's UN SEcurity Council meetings:

Fischer and de Villepin have declared passionately for months that war would be wrong and that their governments wouldn't stand for it. So what are they doing about it, now that it's started? The same thing they did about Saddam Hussein's rearmament: nothing. Sloth and cowardice, it turns out, are as agreeable to American aggression as to Iraqi aggression.

"The Security Council has not failed," Fischer told fellow council members. "The Security Council has made available the instruments to disarm Iraq peacefully. The Security Council is not responsible for what is happening outside the U.N."

Wait, let's hear that again. The Security Council is not responsible for what is happening outside the U.N.

And to think some people said the United Nations was useless.

2003-03-21T16:16:00.000-05:00

If the peace movement had sounded more like Michael Kinsley, some people might have listened. He's witty, reasonable-sounding, and most importantly, focused on a few strong points with sound arguments.

2003-03-21T16:13:00.000-05:00

FROG!

Orson Scott Card has my new favorite acronym:

And not one word from France, Russia, or Germany (FROG) suggests....

2003-03-18T10:47:00.000-05:00

You simply must listen to this radio interview. An Iraqi caller has questions for a peace activist...

about 2.5 MB, 6min, mp3

2003-03-18T09:37:00.000-05:00

France, Germany, Iraq dismiss British compromise

nothing else to say, really.

pointed out by Steven Den Beste

2003-03-18T09:14:00.000-05:00

The Speech Last Night

I thought it was, well, frankly, pretty good. Not his best, but OK.

I liked his direct appeal to the Iraqi people. I don't think there'd been enough public stress on that.

Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.

Also interesting to note that he demanded that Saddam and his sons leave dodge, not the whole regime.

2003-03-18T09:08:00.000-05:00

War and Politics

Clausewitz: "War is politics pursued by other means."

But is Saddam sane enough to to be pursuing politics anymore?

Certianly, he has manipulated the world quite successfully into prolonging the pre-war setup practically indefinitely, and partyl responsible for changing the rules of the gmae of who needs to prove what...

Even better was Saddam's relentless launching of SCUD missiles into Israel during the 1991 war. His goal: Piss off the Israelis enough to retaliate and the whole region explodes, with Saddam as it's leader, despite the fact that he attacked first...

But then again, he gassed Iran. He gassed the Kurds. OK, OK, I know, everyone hates the Kurds anyways, but gassing Iran has no political benefits whatsoever that I can see.

Does this mean that Saddam has a certain snapping point, a moment where political reason, albeit through war, fails altogether?

2003-03-18T09:05:00.000-05:00

What is this war about?

A war in Iraq isn't about vengeance.

A war in Iraq will not yield UBL.

A war in Iraq for the love of god isn't about oil.

A war in Iraq isn't about taking out a man that has killed 10 million
Iranians with Chemical Weapons.

A war in Iraq isn't about taking out a man that has killed hundreds of
thousands of his own people with Chemical Weapons.

A war in Iraq isn't about freedom for the people of Baghdad

A war in Iraq isn't about freedom for the Kurds. No one likes the Kurds
anyways.

A war in Iraq isn't even about righting the previous wrongs of America,
the wrongs that kept SH in power and gave him arms during the 1980s.

A war in Iraq is about fixing a fundamental instability that thrives
throughout the Middle East. It's about taking advantage of a morally
justified opportunity to straighten out one central and historically
powerful land area in the heart of the Arab world, presenting
opportunities to rectify the rampant political systems that oppresses
people, breeds hate, allows or encourages terrorism not just in the US but
throughout the world.

That's right. A war in Iraq is about fixing the fucking Israel-Palestine
issue. It's about letting women out in public and letting them drive in
Saudi Arabia. It's about freeing Jordan from threats from it's neighbors
so it can continue to modernize. It's about a regional political and
economic modernization.

Why?

Because rich free happy people don't bomb other people.

Because rich free happy people make the rest of the world richer, freer,
and happier.

Because it's the right thing to do.

2003-03-13T23:38:00.000-05:00

WRT last post.... And I even went to Jefferson's school, too.

anyways, i'm in a silly mood now.

I am a Scorched Earth Tank.

When I have a mission, it consumes me; I will not be satisfied until the job is done. I have a strong sense of duty, and a strong sense of direction. Changes in the tide don't phase me - I always know which way the wind blows, and I know how to compensate for it. I get on poorly with people like myself. What Video Game Character Are You?

2003-03-13T23:36:00.000-05:00

Libertarian - You believe that the main use for
government is for some people to lord it over
others at their expense. You maintain that the
government should be as small as possible, and
that civil liberties, "victimless
crimes", and gun ownership should be basic
rights. You probably are OK with capitalism.
Your historical role model is Thomas Jefferson.

Which political sterotype are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

2003-03-13T23:08:00.000-05:00

Was browsing through Samizdata and got to a bit of ranting in reference of Dale Amon's posting:

According to a poll taken in the last few days, 71% of Americans just want to get the damn thing done and over with.

And what about the rest of the world? Similar sentiment? I'm stuck here in DC, and apart from the occasional Taxi driver, I don't get too much exposure to people actually living in various other countries (as opposed to being from other countries).

And what's with the polls in GBR? I see variations upwards of 30% sometimes, e.g., if Bush gets the backing of the UN, some say 45%, some say 75% of Brits would support the war on Iraq... +/- 4% margin, of course.

Heck, while I'm ranting.... I'm sick and tired of the term "War On Iraq."

Propose a change: "War In Iraq."

We're not fighting the Iraqi people. We're not really liberating them either. We're fighting some dude who happens to live in, control, authoratize, and hide within Iraq.

2003-03-12T17:00:00.000-05:00

I don't even know what to say (for once)

The Guardian reports that the illegal Iraqi drone:

appears to be made of balsa wood and duct tape, with two small propellors attached to what look like the engines of a weed whacker.

Someone's delusional here. Technically, it could be the US, but I suspect it's the Guardian.

Note also that the Guardian thinks Blix is on the wrong side of the debate, a view commonly held by the hawk crowd:

Blix mentioned the drone in a 173-page written list of outstanding questions about Iraq's weapons programs last week. While small, Blix said, drones can be used to spray biological warfare agents such as anthrax. He said the drone hadn't been declared by Iraq to inspectors.

2003-03-07T11:15:00.000-05:00

Steven Den Beste responds to Walt Pohl's open letter to him, and ends up with a very well-written article addressing the fact that no, the impending war with Iraq is NOT about retaliation.

Germany had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, but American involvement in WWII had nothing to do with revenge. Yes, many individual citizens were motivated by revenge, and on a political level that is what made war possible. But the US government got involved in the war to remove the danger we faced, and the primary danger was Nazi Germany.

and also:

But that's not the real reason. We are taking Iraq for the same reason we took Morocco: to use it as a staging ground for further operations in the overall war.

and my last quote:

That doesn't mean "Kill! Kill! Kill!" It doesn't mean we solve our problem with Arab failure by killing all the Arabs. If that was what we wanted to do, the war would have ended about a week after the September 11 attack, after which most of the Arab world would have been converted to radioactive glass.

Read the whole thing. Recall my earlier ranting about how this is really about the Whole Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia and Iran, followed by Israel and Palestine. This is the direction we're heading towards.

2003-03-05T16:45:00.000-05:00

morality in leadership

Anne Applebaum reminds us all:

If we remembered, truly remembered, why the Cold War was fought and how it was won, for example, we would know that it is unacceptable to alter our liberal democracy in order to fight the war on terrorism either at home or abroad.

It's the foundation of the philosophies of themic: inform your conscience, then follow it.

This is why we have strict rules of engagement. This is why we spend more money to make smarter bombs. This is why we encourage the world to unite together, but why we have to start a war nevertheless. And yes, it's not always easy.

Incidentally, this is why I have a greater and greater respect for President Bush. He may be nuts, he may be stupid, but dammit, he has convictions, and he will follow them until the dear end.

I care if our President's views differ from mine, but I'm more concerned that the President is a good man, and is following those views with his whole heart. You know what that inspires? Faith, people. FAITH.

FAITH means that if we do something we think is good and right, and we do it in the best and most moral way we can, then despite hurdels and speedbumps and even tragedies, we have contributed to making the world a better place, and the world WILL BE a better place.

I remember reading, a while back, an article on the popularity of Vladimir Putin. Asked a wide variety of questions about his policies, he consistently got 60 to 90% disapproval rates amongst the people of Russia. However, asked for an overall approval rate, he was getting 95%. Why the dichotomy? Something to the effect of "I don't have to agree with him to think he's doing a good job."

This is the core of what bothered me about Clinton, as opposed to Bush. Clinton (and Gore 2000) was more interested in public approval rate than in doing what was right. Well, at least he seemed that way. You got the feeling that he didn't know what was right, but he just wanted to be loved. This is the personality of an abused husband, a mousy father, inches from bitter resentment and capable of bursts of personal ego-driven irrational behavior. This is the personality of Joaquin Phoenix in Gladiator.

Bush, on the other hand, honestly doesn't seem to give a shit what people think of him. Certainly the preparations for war aren't giving him approval raises. Most certainly the delay in waiting for the United Nations to figure out if they're going to say something isn't helping him either, at home or abroad. Although he ceratinly had approval ratings to spare, it's been a long time since I've seen someone so blatantly disregard them. Reagan and PATCO, maybe?

This belief in doing what's right is considered many things by different people. Christian Fundamentalism, Naivety, Foolhardy and Totalitarian. It is a series of insults founded on fear and an artificial air of superiority that popular media musters so easily when they lack the time or energy to properly debate.

Yesterday on NPR I heard an essay by a Lieutenant in the US Navy. He talked about his conversations with one of his best friends, after she returned from an anti-war protest. He observed that while he risks his life for his government and to help the afflicted people of Afghanistan and Iraq, he recognized that she risk incurring the wrath of the US Government. Both, however, believe they are doing what's right, and both deserve praise for that. And both should take a moment and an open mind to recognize the other.

I would praise Chirac for standing by his values, too, if I didn't have the distinct suspicion that he's not actually sticking to values. He's making a power play for France, for Europe (or at least a Europe led by France), purely for personal gain. This was shown most recently and most explicitly through his condescending and direct threats to Eastern Europe. Frankly, right now the honor and purity of heart is easier to see in those who are uniting, in the US and UK, Italy, Spain, Denmark, and Eastern Europe. Not in France, Germany, Belgium, and Turkey.

As a disclaimer, it should be noted that I've traditionally valued the presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan more than many. I recognize that they lean more towards the dangerous-levels-of-power than I should be comfortable with in a democratic government, but I view that as a flexibility of our democratic government to allow singular/elightened leadership when presented with it, and to rediverge the power when that leadership wanes.

-- brendan

2003-03-05T15:59:00.000-05:00

TURKEY
Here's my take.

Looks like the game is getting interesting over there. After the vote against American troops based in Turkey, it'll be interesting to see how Turkey's role will play out in what looks like an inevitable war.

Turkey continues to insist they will be an invading force, as part of the coalition, and that they will indeed leave when the coalition leaves. It seemed like the real reason they didn't want American troops is because America was planning on not letting Turkish troops across the border, for fear of losing the support of the Northern Iraqi people and of having to babysit good guys and bad guys at the same time. There's a lot of history there. Even after extensive reading I feel I'm barely scratching the
surface of the complex interrelations in that region.

from OpenDemocracy:

The Kurds went ballistic. "Any Turkish intervention under any pretext would lead to clashes," thundered Hoshyar Zebari, veteran KDP head of foreign relations. "If Turkish soldiers come here, to Erbil, I will hate the Turks and the Turcomans. We will use what we have, even our lives, if we have to," said Nasreen Mustafa Sidiq, the Kurdish minister of reconstruction and development in Erbil.

No one should underestimate the importance of handling Turkey well, especially given the importance of post-war Iraq being a foundation for the reshaping of the Middle East.

2003-03-05T15:55:00.000-05:00

This from the Telegraph:

The London-based Al-Zaman newspaper said that Gen al-Darraj told "indignant" relatives shortly before he died that he had been slipped a poisoned drink during the meeting at one of Saddam's presidential palaces.

Not to make light of a serious tragedy, but doesn't it seem just a bit James Bond-ish? Well, Mr. Scientist, perhaps you would like a sip of (ominous music) TEA, net to my tank of beauuuuuutiful (ominous music) SHARKS WITH LASERS?

I don't know if I believe this one.

2003-03-05T15:52:00.000-05:00

OK it's been a while.

I know.

2003-01-21T16:24:00.000-05:00

No More Fun (Again)

Actually, this is mildly amusing in a cynical liberty-fatalistic way... What should we ban next? The EU did swing sets, and now Britain, sigh, Britain....

2003-01-21T10:34:00.000-05:00

Oh, BTW, I'm Back

Been gone for awhile. Back now. Got a little busy getting married. :D

2003-01-21T10:30:00.000-05:00

No More Fun

In a staggering move of blatant governmental mommy-ing gone wrong, the EU has decided what swing sets you can or cannot use (for your OWN GOOD). I'm picturing police raids, where SWAT teams move in on unsuspecting mommies...

The pictures with this article are precious.

2002-11-21T13:06:00.000-05:00

Knock Knock.

Who's There?

Thought Police. You're under arrest for something you didn't even think or say, but could've.

(link by Natalie Solent, posted at samizdata)

2002-11-21T11:13:00.000-05:00

Fixed the link for the something awful post two down..

2002-11-18T08:28:00.000-05:00

heading out of town for the next few days.

2002-11-15T13:15:00.000-05:00

Something Awful has officially reacted to DARPA IAO scary graphic...

2002-11-14T17:25:00.000-05:00

The actual text of Iraq's letter to the United Nations.

My initial reaction was: wow, I expected a much more legal feel and much less appeal to emotions, especially through rhetorical questions.

My second thought was: interesting to see how Iraq recognizes how utterly useless the United Nations is in this whole thing, just as everyone else does, except possibly for France.

More on this later

2002-11-14T13:13:00.000-05:00

The thing with Michael Moore is that he's really an asset to conservatives and libertarians. His rhetoric is so robotic, and his ethics so low, that his humour only falls on ears that have already been seeking it. For the rest of us, and for those somewhat undecided, his frustrated whining comes off as, well, frustrated whining, which tends to leave people with a taste of distrust lingering in their mouths.

2002-11-13T19:12:00.000-05:00

The Las Vegas Review Journal wrote an excellent short article on today's 'gun-rights' case in the SCOTUS. I heard about the case, but something about it just wasn't quite right to me... because they're answering the wrong question.

2002-11-13T12:22:00.000-05:00

This is tragic. Brian Barger is an EDITOR at the WASHINGTON POST, and describes his intense ordeal in the city on a recent October evening.

I love the city. I really really do. Best city in the world, in so many ways. But damn they have some problems.

Barger's actions here are highly commendable, and I think he knows it. As apolitical as the article is, you get the feeling that we may be witnessing a conversion to RKBA. If so, then, well, Welcome, Mr. Barger.

2002-11-13T11:33:00.000-05:00

I propose all bloggers openly post that they hate the EU.

2002-11-12T11:25:00.000-05:00

OK, gotta rant for a moment.

Reuters reports that someone is shooting up the speed cameras in London. American readers, these are like red light cameras, but even more evil. It is an example of the mistrust of the common man, the assumption that all are criminal.

A couple of comments about this article. What the Fuck is a "High-powered AIR rifle"? It's an Air Rifle! They're BB's!

Also, there's this:

" 'You often have to worry about the mentality of people who do this sort of thing,' Bryan Edwards, spokesman for the Norfolk Casualty Reduction Partnership, was quoted as saying by the Eastern Daily Press.

It's called 'Civil Disobedience,' Mr. Edwards. Who, btw, comes from yet another English Department with a scary 1984-like name.

2002-11-06T13:06:00.000-05:00

Still Watching!

OK, I admit, I'm having way too much fun with the camera theme, lately. But Wired News is keeping it interesting by letting us know about the great new wonderful services of iSee.

2002-11-06T09:18:00.000-05:00

La Da Dee Da Doo...

There's hope for Maryland after all!

Perhaps the most surprising bit is this (from the Wasington Post):

But Ehrlich's unexpectedly strong showing helped lift other Republicans to State House offices. Democrats maintained their overwhelming dominance in the General Assembly but lost several key seats to Republican challengers, apparently including that of House Speaker Casper R. Taylor Jr. (D- Allegany).

Aides said Taylor had not conceded defeat, but his opponent, LeRoy E. Meyers Jr., appeared to score a stunning upset after running against Taylor's support for gun-control measures. The local businessman, a political unknown, also benefited from radio ads Ehrlich broadcast in the conservative Western Maryland district, urging residents to support a slate of GOP candidates to help him govern in Annapolis.

In other news, there's hope for Northern Virginia after all!

The Post summed up this one well:

However, what the opponents lacked in formal organization, they claimed in grass-roots hostility to all tax increases, unease about creeping sprawl and deep-seated skepticism about government's ability to spend revenue prudently.

... Sen. Warner cautioned that the federal government is unlikely to provide money to fill the transportation funding gap. "It's just not there, [waaaah,]" he said.

2002-11-05T10:37:00.000-05:00

Sometimes it's just funny when a demographic group deluges a reputable (but unscientific) survey. Business Week is noticably pissed but handling it well, I think. Actually, I read the questions, and took the survey myself, and the questions themselves were framed unscientifically and pissedly (I'm making that word up, I know).

For example, look at the third question/graph:

Do you think gun laws are
a) just right
b) not enough
c) ban 'em all

Um.... purely from a reasonable surbvey point of view, what about "d) too much"? I suspect it's not so much that they were trying to deny anyone the answer, but that they were completely incapable of conceiving of anyone thinking "d". Kinda sad for what's normally a respectable publication.

2002-11-05T10:17:00.000-05:00

Inane Lawsuit of the Day

CNN reports a legal threat against "The Airlines" over blood clotting claims (DVT).

OK, so sometimes I have to accept the fac that not everyone knows the basics of how their bodies work. Not everyone knows that if you sit in a tight spot, without moving, for a very long time, tiny blood clots could conceivably form in your veins.

But people should know that if their legs are feeling incredibly cramped and pinched, they should get up and move around every few hours or so. That's all it takes.

Actually, all you really have to do is shift around in your seat every now and then.

If your legs go numb, you know that you should probably move around or stand up a bit, because that's bad.

I can picture it now: mandatory stand up and stretch sessions every half an hour on all flights. At least until someone gets thrown around a bit because of turbulence, or maybe until someone spills their HOT coffee on their neighbor while trying to get their tray table up and down again every 15 minutes.

Isn't this something we should be spared by just having a 5-minute "investigative report" on the evening news on a cold lonely wednesday night in february, when nothing is going on in the world?

CHANNEL EIGHT WARNING: YOU COULD DIE JUST BY SITTING ON AN AIRPLANE! ... FAST TIPS TO PREVENT DVT ON YOUR NEXT 20 HOUR FLIGHT:

1) Move around, you lazy fuck.

COMING UP TOMORROW! YOUR KIDS COULD DIE IF THEY INJEST BLEACH!

2002-11-04T15:48:00.000-05:00

Quote of the day:

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

-- Gandhi, Mahatma. "Gandhi, An Autobiography." M. K. Gandhi, page 446.

2002-11-04T14:09:00.000-05:00

Endlessly Fascinating to me...
Wired has picked up the "Secure Beneath the Watchful Eyes!" story. Samizdata has more pictures and discussion up.
Me, I went to the International Spy Museum this weekend, and saw a life size poster of my favorite wartime poster of all time. Creepy, guys. Creepy.

2002-11-01T17:57:00.000-05:00

Leavin for the weekend... anyone who needs serious reading material might want to take a look at this City Journal article about the FBI, the Wall, the Patriot Act, and 9/11. A point of view a little different from any I've seen so far, and a well done article overall.

2002-11-01T16:36:00.000-05:00

Point, Click...
Watch for Crime!

Do your part to promote Security Beneath Watchful Eyes! We, the internet community, can help keep a vigilant watch over crime, through this web cam!

Link by The Gimper, with many an amusing comment, at Packing.org

2002-11-01T11:15:00.000-05:00

I'm stealing this idea for next year's Halloween.

2002-11-01T11:13:00.000-05:00

A few months ago, Yahoo! email changed its SPAM engine. All of a sudden, it seemed like everythign was getting through. Since then, though, it has gotten increaingly better, at a very good pace.

The new email system, by the way, has a very neat option in the headers of each message. You can report "This is SPAM."

It occurred to me, that thy're likely running a new neural network nowadays, fed and trained by the millions of yahoo users. Even if only some people report the messages, and only some of the time, this engine is recieving an absolute wealth of information. This might be a truly great feat of engineering.

But what really intrigues me is the wealth of information. What this SPAM network is learning about the way real humans type and write, and how the minds of marketing people fundamentally differ from the minds of us normal people. I'm probably offending someone right now.

Anyways, this was just a thought. I leave you now with some SPAM humor of the highest quality, found at SatireWire. It's poetry, folks. Poetry composed entirey of SPAM.

2002-11-01T10:17:00.000-05:00

Thought of the day:

Finding the answers is no excuse to stop searching.

-- me 2002 11 01 1016

2002-10-30T16:30:00.000-05:00

Mark Steyn of The National Post rails on the media. And does a good job of it, too.

2002-10-29T13:54:00.000-05:00

For those of us with a strange fascination with the straight facts, before media filtering, there's always the bastion of truth, freedom, the American Way, and the FOIA: the Smoking Gun, and their Sniper Related Documents.

2002-10-29T13:29:00.000-05:00

UPDATE: BBC News does a halfway decent job of summing up the Russian gas theories. Apparently, naloxone (aka Narcan) was used, after all, with positive effects.

OK, so I used to be a medic in a metropolitan area. You really should see this stuff work. It's easy, it's cheap, it's harmless, and you can push it however you like (IV, IM, into the lungs, etc...). You can't overdose anyone with it. And it takes literally seconds. It's actually recommended that you push it slowly because people whose buzz is killed within 3 seconds tend to not have a big sense of humour about it, despit however fucked up and close to death they might have been. See Bringing Out the Dead for a pretty good example of this stuff.

Unconscious person? Establish the scene safety; attempt to wake patient; check and fix airway, breathing, circulation; give oxygen, push Narcan and D50 (liquid sugar, desxtrose, in case they're unconscious from a diabetic problem). There it is. About 1 - 2 minutes into a new patient. If it starts working, and you got lots of unconscious people in a MCI, a good scene director will order the medics to walk around injecting Narcan into the thighs of everyone lying on the ground.

Which brings us to the consideration: if there was an easy way to aerosolize or powderize opiates into the theater, then they shouldn't have to tell the doctors what the gas was, because they're going to be giving the antidote to everyone there anyways, as a matter of course.

2002-10-29T11:24:00.000-05:00

Taxes

Marc Fisher of the Washington Post wrote an excellent article on the Northern Virginia sales tax referendum. Open-minded and fair, I think. And yeah, I live in Arlington, so I like that he included the viewpoint of those of us who don't like to use cars.

2002-10-28T16:00:00.000-05:00

Am I the only one to think that the Russians handled this thing pretty well?

OK, so you've got 18 suicide bombers in the building. You've got 30 other explosive packs lying planted at strategic points in the building. You've got 50 crazed religious militant terrorists.

What do you do?

If you've got a bomb strapped to my chest, you need only to see the Alpha team come in through the windows and about 2 seconds to set off yourself, your neighbor's bombs, etc...

If the enemy has explosives strapped to them, do you want to go in shooting at them?

Do you want them to have more than 90 seconds or so to say, "hey guys, we're being gassed and won't live, lets all go boom! as our last dying act" ?

What horrible bad world opinion would happen if you went in and everyone got blown up and nobody was saved, at all?

If you didn't go in, and the same thing happened?

What are the implications of letting the terrorists maintain even a second of control after your decision to move in?

Yes, Russia is currently making a horrible political move by not talking about the gas... and likely they should've done so right away with the doctors at the scene. Although, if the gas was an opium derivative, standard emergency protocols in America would've had the medical personnel pushing Narcan anyways (a highly safe drug pushed as part of standard protocols to people unconscious for unknown reasons, which immediately counteracts all narcotics in the blood).

This is a horrible horrible occurrence. But it is NOT pulling a Reno. And as the media begins its classic song and dance of shifting responsibility to the survivors/good-guys/anyone-else, remember who's really responsible for this tragedy. The terrorists. The perpetrators. The bad guys.

2002-10-28T15:35:00.000-05:00

Isn't this creeeeepy?

Pop Quiz: This is a picture of
(a) a 1984 Pulp Art cover for 1984 by George Orwell
(b) Nazi war-time Propaganda Poster
(c) A poster in a social-commentary sci-fi movie
(d) An actual official government poster currently being put up around London

Go ahead, guess...

If you guessed:

(a) close... check out the pulp art for 1984 in the upper right hand corner

(b) close... chech out this popular fun poster posted by the Nazis in WWII

(c) close... being watched is a popular theme, as in the movie "They Live!"

(d) If you actually guessed d, then you're one paranoid fucked up cynical ass. Much like the London Metropolitan Police. Congratualtions! Perry de Havilland of Samizdata alerts us all to this hot new trend in London... Big Brother!

I honestly don't think this requires any further comment. But maybe another picture.

UPDATE: The creeeeepy website!

2002-10-23T16:43:00.000-04:00

This is a quality quote about the sniper, from Jesse Walker at Reason:

My own baseless theory is that the murders were committed by a mad postmodernist. The sniper certainly seems more self-aware than earlier serial killers, and it has been widely suggested that he or she delights in undermining the police theory of the moment with each new target. If you want to foster suspicion of master narratives, you could do no better job than the killer has; he seems eager to do to criminologists what Burroughs and Pynchon did to literary critics.

2002-10-18T17:29:00.000-04:00

To: letters@economist.com
From: themic
Date: 2002 10 18 1731 EDT
Re: Nobel Prizes

Dear Editor,

Last Friday (Oct 11 2002), TUNKU VARADARAJAN wrote an editorial in the WALL STREET JOURNAL calling for a Nobel Prize in Evil. At first glance it is an almost light-hearted rant against the ever-surprising Nobel Peace Prize committee, and the prize itself. However, it quickly becomes a compelling and serious opinion on the value of "peace" prizes altogether.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110002454

Creating a true committee for an anti-peace prize, with international recognition and clout, would of course be incredibly difficult to do. However, it immediately occurred to me that one of the most respected and renowned organizations might have the brains, the slightly offbeat sense of humor, the means, and especially the *guts* to create and back such a disparaging prize.

You.

With respect,

-- Brendan

subscriber

bem9q@yahoo.com
http://themic.blogspot.com

other references:
Brian Micklethwait http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/002247.html#002247
Glenn Reynolds http://www.instapundit.com/archives/week_2002_05_05.php
William Quick http://www.dailypundit.com/archives/005401.php

2002-10-18T11:20:00.000-04:00

Followup:
Dale Amon of Samizdata volunteered some research and came up with this very specific reference:

And btw, the law that limits the military taking part is the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, I come up with Title 18, Part I, Chapter 67, Sec 1385 of the USC

2002-10-17T16:36:00.000-04:00

Walking around the Lincoln memorial, last night...

A war might be beginning, a war on American soil.

We haven't had to deal with this since the 1860s.

War on your home turf is no longer a war fought by your government, or your military. It's a war fought by the people. At what point will the people realize this? What will they do? What should they do?

OK, not to go overboard dramatic here, but someone's got to point out the direction this is heading.

The war on terrorism will be fought not on Afghani soil, not in Iraq, not in the air, not by military troops. The war is against an asymmetric threat that has thoroughly infiltrated our borders and society. The war will NOT abide by UN rules of conduct, the Geneva Convention, the moral or just standards of modern "civilized" wars. It will be fought dirty, mean, underground, vicious. It will be fought by a ruthless enemy bent on creating as much destruction, death, damage, fear, and panic as they can possibly cause. It will be fought by an enemy willing to send suicide missions.

It is not targeting the military. It is not targeting the government. It targets us. The American people. Mother, father, schoolchild, priest. The common American citizen. It holds no prejudices against gender, race, age, or religion. It is triuly against the entire American people.

Who has to fight back?

Guess what. If someone's trying to kill you, you can hire or convince or talk anyone and everyone into trying to defend you or catch the bad guy. But in the end, nothing works unless you defend yourself.

We, the American people, must be ready for the war against us. Because only we can effectively fight it.

update: As I was writing this, Dale Amon over at Samizdata wrote basically the same thing.

2002-10-17T11:35:00.000-04:00

Update:

The ACLU has come through to officially and legitimately question the use of military personnel and equipment in the sniper search.

2002-10-17T10:43:00.000-04:00

Christopher Ruddy at NewsMax publicly raises the point that everyone refuses to use the dreaded "T" word in regards to the sniper shootings. It's an observation of a trail of bad communication with the public from police and the media.

What about the rumors that there was a shooting at a moving car the day before it all started? It was squashed down and not officially linked, and find me a news site that refers to it once. Other shootings? It's not small stretch of the imagination that the worst fears of those in charge of information is to let the public think that these are terrorists that are shooting even at cars or homes. Are they? We can't know, but we can suspect, since they (Moosey is the biggest culprit here) refuse to relase any information. For god's sake, Moosey got pissed when they said the damned taillight was out on the van. WTF? Has it not occurred to anyone that the best chance to prevent the next shooting as opposed to reacting to it is the common man who witnesses it?

What this comes down to is this: Is this a nation of cowards? Is this a public that can't be trusted to act in the face of adversity? That can't be trusted to hear the truth and make their own choices about how to live their life?

Is that who we are or how we are treated?

More on this later...

2002-10-16T15:53:00.000-04:00

So now little happy Predators are going to be flying over the DC area.

OK. The sniper is a bad guy. A BG. he needs to be caught. he needs to be tracked. he needs carved apart with a spoon.

But hot damn, it gets creepy when we start using the latest and greatest military weapons to aid in the hunt. I'm betting these predators don't belong to the National Guard. I'm betting it's constitutionally illegal to deploy military stuff without the declaration of martial law.

Now, admittedly, I'm no constitutional scholar. I can point to some stuff like Article II and Amendment III but frankly I can't find anything conclusive that says that the military shouldn't be deployed over American land, over American people, unless it's a really fucking big deal. Like, revolution, armageddon, invasion, mass mayhem, anarchy, etc.

Putting federal offiers in the planes or with the guys controlling the planes doesn't really matter. The point is, the military has been deployed, albeit subtly and without hearing much complaint, over my head. And it makes me kindof nervous, the precedent that they're setting. That it's just ok to go ahead and do that.

There are reasons we don't deploy troops at every crisis. There are reasons it takes an act of congress to do federal overhead surveillance over American soil.

Um, what happened to police helicopters, to small planes, to any other way of aerial surveillance?

On that note, by the way, Stephen Hunter of the Washington Post wrote an excellent article on just exactly how good this guy(s) is.

2002-10-03T16:50:00.000-04:00

Browsing through a human right, and it occurred to me that someone who is pro-gun assumes that a criminal has a gun, and someone who is pro-gun-control assumes that someone who has a gun is a criminal. The imagery in this site is sometimes quite powerful and beautiful.

2002-09-27T10:51:00.000-04:00

Pilots, Airlines, and Rights

Reason has an article about why the bill to arm pilots still wasn't quite right. This highlights why pro-gun isn't necessarily pro-rights. Here's an excerpt:

The bill supported by Boxer and Smith, which the Senate recently passed by an 87-to-6 vote, would not simply permit airlines to arm their pilots. It would force them to do so. Likewise the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act approved by the House in July, which says airlines have to let pilots bring guns to work.

2002-09-19T17:33:00.000-04:00

What the heck am i doing here

OK so this blog was started as an experiment... to see how I felt, and my regular readers felt, about a different format for my semi-regular rant-like e-mails.

I confess that this wasn't my only motivation. Part of my motivation was to just get some practice writing, putting things up, getting things out...

The practice helps, I"m sure, and it helps me get through the duller moments of my days. I kindof like it. I just don't like the crap that I'm spewing out.

Comparing this stuff to my e-mails, I've noticed a few things:

1 the grammatical quality is much better here
2 the depth is much lesser here
3 the practicality and reality is much greater here
4 the personal insight and significance is much lesser here

At this point I don't really think there's a way to combine the two, effectively. So what's my real goal, now?

Part of me strives to one day write for real, i.e. for money. In all practical terms, this is far greater of a practice session for that purpose. It provides regular outlet, and more rigorous structure, as well as more commonly consumable crap.

I like my other stuff better. As impractical and indecipherable as it is. The grammar and structure can be fixed, cleaned up... but unfortunately the market probably can't.

Or can it?

I'm trying to think of authors past who have truly bridged the gap of what they like to write about, what style they prefer, and made it actually successful. My first thought was the intellectual libertarian satire that appeals to the masses: P.J. O'Rourke and Dave Barry. That's, um, as far as I get. Someone help me out here?

More thoughts on this later. I'm going to go to a book signing by Orson Scott Card. I think I'm bringing a dog-chewed, beaten up, smelly paperback copy of Ender's Game. Probably a faux pas, but dammit, that was the first copy I ever picked up and read.

2002-09-19T17:19:00.000-04:00

If I were Saudi Arabia...

I'd be screwed. Let's think about this...
>your biggest customer is against terrorism, tyrannical power, and the subjugation of citizens especially women
>your country and rule are known for having ties with if not practicing terrorism, tyrannical power, and the subjugation of citizens especially women
>your biggest cutsomer hates your biggest competitor even more than he hates you, or so he says
>your biggest competitor isn't really all that different from you
>your biggest customer needs your land to launch attacks on your biggest competitor
>if said customer destroys the competitor, then he will control the market enough to no longer need to be your biggest customer
>once your biggest customer is no longer a customer, he may use his newfound land to do something against the next biggest ideological enemy: you

So basically you're forced to offer use of land and resources to help destroy a competitor, after which you yourself will be destroyed. What does it feel like to look at a timeline of your own loss of power? To help it along?

2002-09-19T12:51:00.000-04:00

When they say "5 people were killed" by a "suicide bomber," is the suicide bomber included in that number 5? I could argue for either case, I think.

2002-09-18T16:18:00.000-04:00

Ah, what the heck, I'll link to it. It's pretty funny, actually. Tim Ireland, the man who spoofed Tony Blair's e-mail address, has a point he'd like to make: Can Weblogs Make a Politician Keep a Promise? Make sure you check out the Register article that accompanies it, too.

I'd like to take a moment to recount a wonderful e-mail exchange I had with a U.S. Senator (at the time) from Virginia, Senator Charles S. Robb.

As a minion of the IEEE, I had e-mailed a standard form letter e-mail, a call for action, to not pass the HB-105 technological worker importing bill thingy, kinda hazy now... Unfortunately the e-mail system of my University was kind enough to kill all my archives at random occasions while i was a graduate student there, so you can't read the exact letter. It was boring anyways.

Anyways, the response I got was interesting. Whimsical. Amusing.

Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 17:30:59 -0500
From:"Charles Robb" <Charles_Robb@robb.senate.gov>
Subject: Re: Green Cards, Not Guest Workers, Is the Answer
To: <bmccaughey@ieee.org>

Thank you for contacting me in support of reuniting Elian Gonzalez
with his father in Cuba. I understand and share your concern for
this little boy who has suffered a great deal given the loss of his
mother and separation from his father. I firmly believe politics -
associated with debates involving larger issues such as our
political relations with Cuba - ought to have no role in deciding Elian's
fate and that the boy's personal well being ought to be the paramount
concern so that he can return to a more normal life as soon as
possible. Thank you again for contacting me.

Senator Charles S. Robb
United States Senate
robb.senate.gov
senator@robb.senate.gov

This, of course, having absolutely nothing to do with importing Sri Lankan C++ coders or Indian Electrical Engineers. I wasn't even sure how the auto-replier in the senate office thought to send this response; there had been no mention of 'Cuba' or 'Elian' or 'INS' or anything like that - just talk about green cards, visas, and foreign software programmers. A second reading of the reply got me more fired up - he hadn't even taken a fucking position on the damned Elian thing. Come on, Chuck. Gimme something to work with here. I replied:

Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 16:15:05 -0500
To: "Chuck" <Charles_Robb@robb.senate.gov>
From: "brendan" <bmccaugh@osf1.gmu.edu>
Subject: Regarding your insulting reply

Senator Robb,
Thank you for your quick and insulting reply to my inital e-mail entitled "Green Cards, Not Guest Workers, Is the Answer." Your promptness almost made up for the ineptitude of your e-mail filtration system, the complete and utter contempt your office has for your constituents (as evidenced through a disregard to even GLANCE at the e-mails being received/replied to), and finally the complete and utter inability to even properly address the question that I didn't even ask. Frankly, you couldn't even go so far as to take on your party line. What the hell? Are you sensitive about people writing nastier e-mails in reply to your auto-responder? Will the auto-responder feel bad?

I recognize that maybe it was just a fluke that the last reply was horribly insulting and innappropriate. To give you a better chance, I'm not mentioning any of the key words relating to the last reply topic, and I'll even go ahead and through in some more stuff to see if anyone is at all looking at these, ever. In this spirit, all I have left to say is: fuck you, autoresponder, go to hell, or the House, or Liebermann, or wherever. Kiss my fucking ass, bitch.

Sincerely,
-- Brendan
Voter, Taxpayer, Virginian.

I sent it, and sat back, wondering what the odds were that tomorrow morning I'd have a wire tap, an e-mail filter, a white van with no windows parked outside... the chances that someone would read it and find it funny or something or anything and actually respond for real... and then came the respone:

Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 21:03:26 -0500
From: "Charles Robb" <Charles_Robb@robb.senate.gov> ;
Subject: Re: Regarding your insulting reply
To: "brendan" <bmccaugh@osf1.gmu.edu>

Thank you for contacting me in support of reuniting Elian Gonzalez
with his father in Cuba. I understand and share your concern for
this little boy who has suffered a great deal given the loss of his
mother and separation from his father. I firmly believe politics -
associated with debates involving larger issues such as our
political relations with Cuba - ought to have no role in deciding Elian's
fate and that the boy's personal well being ought to be the paramount
concern so that he can return to a more normal life as soon as
possible. Thank you again for contacting me.

Senator Charles S. Robb
United States Senate
robb.senate.gov
senator@robb.senate.gov

Well, ain't that nice. Part of me wondered whether some office worker had actually read it, and simply found it funny to respond with the Elian thing again anyways. I'd appluad that, but I doubt that's the case.

2002-09-18T14:23:00.000-04:00

Quote of the day

"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free."
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

2002-09-17T15:54:00.000-04:00

John Derbyshire, in this National Review Article, has this to add to the growing battle over the use of the word "niggardly":

One friend, who has serious credentials as a conservative thinker, said this: "John, you are a gentleman, and I know you would not knowingly give unnecessary offense. I am sure, therefore, that you would in fact avoid the word 'niggardly' in a group that included not-very-well-educated black fellow citizens." I had to admit that he was right: I would.

Thoughts: One has to wonder how much attention need be paid to the audience from the speaker's point of view? Must a group audience always be lessened to the least common denominator, which is the usual case in the incidents that gained national attention? Think about it... always lowering to the LCD contributes to the de-education of the populus, in general.

Someone once employee intiated harrassment charges against me for using the words "company picnic," which according to her was a derivation of some sort of Old South term involving "picking" and the n-word (as opposed to the Old French "pique-nique") Yes, it was offensive, and yes, if I had accounted for her intellect level beforehand, I might have avoided talking, ever.

Then there's always those stories about people being fired for saying "pedagogical"...

2002-09-16T16:08:00.000-04:00

Preliminary thoughts-in-quotation-form about the idea of a university, the next major essay:
(warning: TEASER here!)

From your first day at school you are cut off from life to make theories - Taisen Deshimaru

There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility -- Theodore Roosevelt

Education begins as playful adventure, but this is just a confidence trick. Creativity and curiosity soon falter under the increasing weight given to obedient imitation and the spirit of competition. By the time the child reaches high school education has already become a chore. -- Gavin Gee-Clough

...that instruction is different from education -- can't remember

The purpose of a University is to establish, perpetuate, and indoctrinate social norms, within the framework of academic elitism, as well as to establish and perpetuate themselves. -- me

I'll be re-reading Newman and Pirsig soon... and I'm welcoming any thoughts and considerations.

2002-09-13T12:22:00.000-04:00

PUBLIC SCHOOLS IMPROVING
Say Parents Who Don't Want to Look Stupid

Source: The Washington Post

In an effort to turn around public perception of the quality of teaching in public schools, Fairfax County has turned to a new tactic - confusing the fuck out of parents.

"With some trepidation we undertook exploratory measures to temporarily perturbate the discursive facilities of the progenitors-slash-guardians at the critical junctures of criticism - when they see report cards," said a Fairfax County Spokesperson.

The new 41-page kindergarten report card has foregone the traditional stuff like "sometimes" and "tries hard" and "kinda good" in favor of a vocabulary that officials say better reflects the most important elements of learning at this early stage. "It also just plain shuts them up," said an official who requested anonymity.

Don Hutzel, principal of Churchill Road Elementary in McLean, which also used the new report card last year, said he got "very little negative feedback" about it.

Many parents express enthusiasm for the new system. Said Donny Mackle, "when I read that my Dyllann was an [sic] 'not an emergent sesquipedalian,' but was 'a primary force for general chickanery,' I almost cried in joy. I was so happy our schools have finally begun turning around. I told my son, that's great, er, super..super...fluous!"

Parental opinion is not completely unanimous, but the end results seem to be the same.

One parent, who requested anonymity, told us "I saw Jennifer's - er, my daughter's report card, and I just gave up after page 3. I sat down and cried. I don't know why. I just did. I lost all will to ever show up at PTA again." Then she started to cry again.

"It took me a long time to decipher it," said Diane Brody, president of the Fairfax County Council of PTAs. "It's going to be way over many people's heads."

County officials plan to expand the program next year. Said one official, "it will be a cornicopia of capricious condescension of gargantuous proportions"

2002-09-13T10:09:00.000-04:00

Stumbled upon an interesting and lucid viewpoint of looking at every day as a fresh new good day, a mantra I firmly believe.

"Every day is a good day" is a quote from a Zen koan, spoken by Zen Master Yun Men, who lived and taught in 10th century China. It is found in one of the most influential classics of Zen literature, The Blue Cliff Record, a compilation of the sayings of many generations of Zen Masters and practitioners.

What Yun Men meant by these words is an interesting question to investigate and study. Here is what they mean to me:

To have the conviction that every day is a good day means that we are really living our own lives. If we discriminate based on our own feelings of happiness or unhappiness and say: "I wonder if today will be good," or "Today I am happy so it is a good day," or "Today I am unhappy so today is a bad day," or "If something nice happens to me today I will have the opinion that today is a good day," then we lose our lives. That kind of attitude means we are living passively, as if life is just something that happens to us. If we live this way we have given up the direction of our own lives and we will inevitably decline.

To understand that every day is a good day takes courage. Because on some days we will suffer. Then, when that is necessary, when that is the reality of our lives, it is our day to suffer. That reality shifts, as we all have experienced, from day to day, even from moment to moment. It shifts as a result of our intention, as a result of our karma. Some days we will be happy. Then it will be a good day to be happy. Some days we will have to struggle. Then it will be a good day to struggle. Some day we will need to fight. Then it will be a good day to fight. Some day it will be our day to die. Then, as Black Elk said, it will be a good day to die.

This attitude can seem contradictory to our familiar mental habits. We might prefer it to be untrue, because the implication of thinking this way is that we are responsible for our own lives. However, in fact, we are. And if we treat every day as a good day to face what we face, then our lives begin to change.

source: http://www.fightingarts.com

Tsunemoto says, in the Hagakure, that each morning you should wake up with the attitude that you are already dead. This is notably different from approaching each day as if you might die. Acceptance of death makes life more valuable, meaningful, fulfilling.

Today I had a great morning.

2002-09-12T15:28:00.000-04:00

bah humbug

September 11. Sitting in a bar in Georgetown, to escape from the mourning bandwagon with friends, with gin, with tonic, and with merit ultra lights. Abruptly the bartenders yell at us to shut up, turn off the music, turn on the TVs at full blast, and show the Bush speech.

Nevermind that the speech was uninspired and banal. The point is, we're in a fucking bar. Three miles away, there's group hugging and candles at the capitol building, and likely countless other venues for wearing black and tearing your clothes and pounding our chest whilst bowing your head in silence.

Then a group of bargoers opened the piano and engaged into the most horrific rendition of "god blesss america" i've never dared to conceive of.

We left.

One year after the fact... frankly I didn't much feel like lighting candles or holding hands and singing or anything. It's my opinion that you mourn when you are ready and willing to mourn, or when your friend is, but not when someone tells you NOW YOU MUST MOURN.

I think this is related to my traditional pessimism about holidays and such. It's a random day of the year. Sometimes it has fun customs, sometimes you get a day off work. Sometimes it serves as a convenient landmark when everyone knows to get drunk at the same time. That's helpful. But it's not absolutely necessary that YOU MUST LIKE YOUR FAMILY TODAY or anything like that. The day of the week or the month or the year shouldn't have anything to do with it. This always killed my family and friends when I worked rescue every holiday, or when I was shift-work and worked to get the triple-pay every holiday. Will my family be any less related to me the day after Christmas?

I'd done my time, my healing, and I might need to do it again, or with friends again. But dammit if I'm going to force myself into a funk because the Earth is in the same position relative to the sun again.

Maybe it's because I do a decently half-assed job of waking up each morning with an appreciation for the fact that I'm alive and it's a beeautiful day that shall not be wasted with artificially induced pains.

This coming November, I could sit and contemplate, mourn, celebrate, or something on my new "dual-holiday" - Thanksgiving / Freedom Day. I could be funky or giggly. Or something. Instead, though, I think I'm going to take this opportunity to have a nice dinner on a day off from work with my family, my girlfriend, and her mother. Because it will be nice to do that. Because that's what I want to do.

Turn off the TV, ignore the paper and the radio, and sit and think for yourself for a moment - am I really in a funk, naturally? If yes, then good for you. Turn 'em all back on. Now's a convenient time to be in that funk. Me, I'm going to go be happy.

2002-09-09T22:42:00.000-04:00

aight. we're up and running. let's fuck with the world, then.

2002-09-09T22:37:00.000-04:00

TESTING TESTING FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PLEASE WORK THIS TIME