Bored With the Rings

All right, I am a heretic. I am about to commit blasphemy. I shall engage in an act which will have many questioning my sanity, or at least my taste. So be it.

"LOTR: The Two Towers" sucks.

All right, I understand that middle films in any trilogy have a hard road to hew. Fine. If that's the nature of the product, then the producers of that product know that going in and should act accordingly. In other words, they should make a product that is superior to the first, and maybe even the third. In contrast to that lofty ideal, "The Two Towers" is lacking. It is just more of the same from "The Fellowship of the Ring," no less and absolutely no more. No more plot, no more development, no more interesting. Ugh. It is a big, huge, string of "zzzzzzzz."

This has really bugged me because people whose opinions I respect have raved about this film. They love it. I hate it. Where does this disconnect come from? When I saw it on The Big Screen, I walked away going, for the first time ever, "Can I have those three hours of my life back?" I have seen some absolutely shitty films and I have never felt like watching them was such a complete waste of time.

Does anything happen in "The Two Towers"? If anything does, I missed it. I've watched it again on DVD. I'm still missing it. It's beautifully photographed, gorgeously rendered, lovingly assembled...and a whole string of other "ly" words apply to its technical construction.

BUT!

The plot moved forward not one smidgen. Precisely two things sorta happened. You got to see that Gollum has A Good Side. Gosh, how sweet. Only by film's end he's precisely back where he started at film's start. He's an annoying little prick who wants his precious, and is plotting the ugly demise of Frodo in order to get it.

The other item were those walking tree critters who aren't trees. They were cool. I have heard they're not in the book. That would explain why they are cool. And if they are in the book, well at least this is a great rendition.

The tree dudes point out one of the biggest issues I have with the film, though. Namely, they are all, storming the evil tower, stomping (literally) orc ass. Then someone utters, "Release the river!" Where in the hell did that dam come from? I don't remember that in the first film, and I looked for it in the scenes leading up to this climax in the second film. It just sort of, "poof," appears and drowns all sorts of bad guy mischief. Deus ex machina? "And suddenly I dreamed I had a phaser...."

But really, where's the plot? Years and years ago I tried to read these books and I just for tired of reading about people walking around, smoking pipes, eating food, walking around, sulking, walking around, eating food, pining for the fjords, walking around, drinking and eating, talking, thinking, feeling gloomy, and....

Oh hell, you get the idea.

There are those among you who adore such things. I am not of you. I prefer a book, a story, driven by plot. I'm not picky about the plot. I'm not even a stickler for the speed at which the plot unfolds, unravels, or otherwise meanders. I just want a plot. Well, usually. I'm not consistent. This weekend, after sleeping through "The Two Towers," I watched the newly released Fosse wonderwork "All That Jazz." Does it have a plot? Well, sorta, but it's driven by characters. Would that this had been true of "The Two Towers."

Personally I've already decided that after "The Return of the King," when all three are wrapped up into a DVD set, you could pull "The Two Towers" out of the boxed set and never miss it. Unless you were some sort of Tolkien freak. But then again, you're already screaming about Peter Jackson's alterations, the bastard.

UPDATE:

I forgot to mention that decent mid-trilogy films do exist. "The Empire Strikes Back", in addition to being the best of the original three films, demonstrates what a mid-trilogy film can do. Characters evolved, they changed. Situations changed. The Plot Unfolded. Etc.

From what I have been told, "The Matrix: Reloaded" does the same. (I missed it at the theatres, and thus must wait until October 14 for the DVD to know for sure.) All complaints about the film aside, it moved the plot along. Things were different at the end than they were at the beginning.

In other words, both of these mid-trilogy films did what "The Two Towers" didn't.

Nauseating

California Governor Gray "Not My Real Name" Davis spoke to the faithful yesterday, taking the offensive against his recall.

sacbee.com -- Politics -- Davis stands by his record

Gov. Gray Davis, opening a new phase in his campaign to hold on to his job, took his case directly to the voters Tuesday -- accepting criticism for acting too slowly on the energy crisis but not offering any apologies.

He accepts criticism but doesn't take responsibility, or even admit he might have just goofed, even if just a little. Oh, wait, that's not how The Faithful see it:

Dan Terry, president of the California Professional Firefighters Association, disagreed, saying Davis had taken responsibility for the energy crisis and "laid responsibility where it belonged."

"I am proud of my governor," he said. "He did a good job."

Yes, yes, a great job of doing a $50 billion shift in California's fortune, from plus $12 billion to minus $38 billion all because of a one year spike in state income.

Also, I'm confused. If he took responsibility, then how can he lay responsibility "where it belonged"? If he accepts responsibility, it's his. But, no, he didn't accept a damn thing. He just shifted it to someone else. He's a victim, damnit, wahhhhh. Such a lovely picture of a governor.

Of course, the nature of this audience tells you who the intended audience really was:

Arriving onstage with his wife, Sharon, at his side, he was welcomed with a standing ovation from an invited crowd of about 300 union activists and supporters. They frequently interrupted his address at UCLA's Ackerman Hall with cheers, chants, boos and standing ovations.

Or, as Dan Waters (also in the Sac Bee) puts it:

Davis' 20-minute speech to a carefully selected audience of enthusiastic supporters at UCLA was clearly aimed at arresting his popularity plunge -- one that threatens to make him irrelevant as the recall becomes an assumption, and the contest among Bustamante, Schwarzenegger and others takes center stage. And Davis' chief target was Democratic voters, many of whom are ready to jettison him, especially because they have another Democrat in Bustamante waiting in the wings.

Waters also zeroes in on the, er, alterations Davis loves to make to history:

The governor described the 2001 energy crisis, which saw Californians experience power blackouts and soaring utility bills, as something foisted on the state by Enron and other greedy energy suppliers. However, Davis glossed over and distorted his refusal early in the crisis to allow utilities to sign long-term supply contracts that would have protected them and their customers from soaring spot market power prices. That refusal has been singled out by even the most objective critics as Davis' chief failure -- one magnified a half-year later when he sought long-term contracts at much-higher prices.

Davis cryptic version: "I refused to give in to pressure to raise rates astronomically." Reality: Rates would have risen only slightly had Davis acted earlier, and they did rise astronomically to pay for the much more expensive contracts his administration signed later.

And as for that small problem of the deficit, I again defer to Mr. Waters for the clearest and truest explanation:

The record differs markedly from Davis' self-serving version. When the state experienced a $12 billion windfall in 2000, Davis publicly declared that he would stoutly resist pressure from either party to spend it because it likely would be a one-time phenomenon, stemming from a flurry of stock market activity in the volatile high-tech industry. If the money were to be committed to ongoing spending or permanent tax cuts, Davis said then, the state could face massive deficits as future revenues returned to normal levels.

In fact, however, Davis and lawmakers quickly agreed to spend about $8 billion of the windfall on ongoing programs -- tax cuts, education and health care primarily -- and when revenues did return to normal, the state had an $8 billion "structural deficit" that was papered over with bookkeeping gimmicks and loans in the ensuing three years. It leaves the state with an immense ongoing deficit and equally massive debts.

So, Davis said one thing then ran as quickly as possible to do the opposite.

A Constitutional Lesson

Reuters "reports"" that Fox News is suing Al Franken. At issue is Franken's use of the phrase "fair and balanced" on the book's cover. Fox News uses that as a tag phrase for their news broadcasts. Says Lisa Johnson, spokeswoman for Franken's publisher:

In trying to suppress Al Franken's book the News Corp is undermining First Amendment principles that protect all media by guaranteeing a free, open and vigorous debate of public issues.

First Amendment...?

The First Amendment begins "Congress shall make no law...." Doesn't say a thing about a private business suing another for copyright infringement. Thus, Ms Johnson's statement is the usual rhetoric, an effort to wrap oneself in the safety and protection of the Constitution when it doesn't even apply.

Unless they want it to, in which case it would seem to me it could undermine the very notion of copyright protection. Is Fox's claim legit? I don't know. Seems like a debateable question, which means it goes to court. But no way is this a First Amendment issue. None at all.

Enterprise

In case no one has mentioned it, twenty-six years ago the Enterprise flew for the first time. While it would never fly in space, this space shuttle would prove that the bricks could indeed "glide" to a safe landing. It also verified that the shuttle could be, er, shuttled to and fro on the back of a modified 747. I believe the Enterprise, OV-101, now is on display at the Smithsonian.

Democrat Love

Gads, love these people:

"Schwarzenegger is going to find out, that unlike a Hollywood movie set, the bullets coming at him in this campaign are going to be real bullets and he is going to have to respond to them," warned Mulholland in an interview with a camera crew from ABC NEWS.

No further comment needed.

Hot, so hot!

They are melting in Europe, with temperatures like....

A weather station in southern Paris reported Monday it had recorded 25.5 degrees Celsius (77.9 Fahrenheit) overnight, the highest nighttime low since France started keeping records in 1873. The previous record was 24C (75.2F), recorded on the night of July 4, 1976.

Less than 80 degrees (American) overnight, and they're complaining? Sheesh. Poor people.

Actually, I should be more sympathetic. As a San Franciscan born and raised, I'm used to a temperature that could be called moderate. I mean, you got up in the morning and the temperature was between 50-55. By evening, it was 50-55. Sometime during the night it dropped to 50-55. That's winter. Summer rises to 55-60. Oh, yes, there are variations; this weekend it was more in the 70's. Nonetheless, over the course of a year the temperature sits in a ten degree range.

Now I live in the Sacramento valley, and temperature can swing 30+ degrees over the course of a day. It'll be in the mid-90's today. July had a record number of 100+ days. Ugh. Hate it. Been here some 17 years and have yet to adapt. I hate summer.

So, sorry, Europe.

An Insult

The Guv says....

Davis said he has "gotten the message. I understand a lot of people signed a recall." But he also called it "an insult to the 8 million people who went to the polls last November and decided I should be governor."

No, what's insulting was his concealing the true and coming size of the state deficit in the days leading up to that election. What's insulting is how he claims he isn't giving state employees a raise, while at the same time negotiating raises. How do you do that? Last year, rather than give state employees a 5% raise, he agree that the state would pay 100% of the contribution to an individual's retirement account, essentially 5% raise. This year, that was going to end; employees would resume paying into their retirement account. As compensation, they would get a 5% raise.

Naturally, he doesn't want to do that now, given the deficit he managed to run up. So here's the deal: Employees waive that 5% raise. In exchange, they get an extra one "personal day" off each month. Surprise! That's effectively a 5% raise! What happens is that the employee can take the day off or they can allow it to accrue. Forever, or until they retire, whichever comes first. This has been done before. The reviled governor Pete Wilson (well, reviled by the wildly liberal state unions, that is) did the same, circa his first year in office. Surprise, that saved the state a prompt billion or so. Bigger surprise, it's current cost to the state is several billion dollars...and growing! Lo and behold, Gray wants to do the same because it looks great on paper and in the headlines. Please, though, no one look behind the curtain.

Damn, this guy sucks.

Happy Birthday, Katie!

No, no, not Couric. This Katie is my daughter. Today is her 18th birthday. I can't wish her happy birthday in person because she's in US Air Force basic training. She's more than a few miles away, very much out of communication with me. With luck, I'll get a letter.

So there's my daughter in military service. And there's my old chief's oldest son in the Navy, currently somewhere in California. And there's his younger son, somewhere near the DMZ in Korea. And on and on. I seem to know an amazing number of people who have volunteered to put themselves in harm's way for their country.

Amen.

Love and kisses, Katie!

Somebody save us...

...from Gray Davis!

The recall is a go. The California Supreme Court has rejected all challenges, including silly ones from The Guv himself, and October 7 remains D-Day for the Davis administration. One of Davis's objections was that he wasn't allowed to be on the list of candidates. As you may know, the recall ballot will have two questions. #1) Should Davis be recalled? #2) If so, who do you want to replace him? The list for #2 is unoffically huge (300+?). I say unofficially because that's the number of applications that have been requested and/or distributed. The final tally of those who have actually filed won't be known until after 5pm Saturday.

And while many see this as evidence of California insanity, Daniel Henninger says it well:

So how is it that Californians are ridiculed as zany for trying to recall a politician-governor who has wasted not only the public trust conferred by election but $38.2 billion of their money, the state's current deficit?

Amen.

Now Arnie is in the race, and the smear begins. First was the perky Katie Couric, quoted via Rush Limbaugh (no link to his specific musings, because I don't know how "permanent" his links are), wherein she immediately implies Arnie is a Nazi. Now today comes this idiot...

Here's a question Jay Leno forgot to ask Arnold Schwarzenegger when he announced his candidacy for governor of California on last night's "Tonight Show": "Will you renounce your support for Kurt Waldheim?"

Puh-leez! Spare me!

Guilt by association: Isn't this the exact same tactic that liberals complain about and label "McCarthyism"? Against McCarthy they railed that membership in the Communist Party didn't mean they were a spy. (Well, many were, but that little fact is, er, ignored.) Now Arnie likes a guy who was a Nazi, and (gasp!) his father was a member of the Nazi Party (during WW2, in Germany/Austria, at a time when pretty much everyone was, or they were in a concentration camp). No, let us never discuss the idea(s) a person might have. So much easier to slander him instead.

From the same opinion/slam piece:

Rather than confront his Waldheim problem head-on, Schwarzenegger has proclaimed his disgust for Nazism, raised money for education about the Holocaust, traveled to Israel (where he met with then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin), and given generously to the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, which in 1997 bestowed on him its National Leadership Award. "He wants no truck with … Waldheim," the Wiesenthal Center’s Rabbi Marvin Hier told the Jerusalem Post. "He probably did not have any clue as to the seriousness of the allegations against Waldheim at that time [i.e., 1986]. To suggest that Arnold's an anti-Semite is preposterous. He's done more to further the cause of Holocaust awareness than almost any other Hollywood star."

(Emphasis mine.)

And despite all that, the piece wraps up in the very next paragraph with....

Clearly, though, that won’t be enough. If Schwarzenegger doesn't renounce Waldheim in a highly public way, he can forget about ever becoming governor of California.

By God, just because a rabbi states the matter correctly, absolving Arnie of any implied guilt, doesn't mean the liberals will. They can't! Damnit, he's a Republican!

The only thing clear is that hacks like Noah (who?) and Couric (highest paid talking head on TV?) will do whatever is necessary to stop any Republican from gaining any public office. In this, they are the perfect reps for Gray Davis, who can never campaign on his record (which sucks, remember the $50+ billion swing in California state economics, from a $12 billion surplus to a $38+ billion deficit), so constantly goes on the smear offensive.

And they wonder why we want him (and them) to go. Don't go away upset, don't go away mad, just go away.

The Morality of Liberty

Part of what PM Tony Blair told Congress yesterday:

This is a battle that can't be fought or won only by armies. We are so much more powerful in all conventional ways than the terrorists. Yet even in all our might, we are taught humility. In the end, it is not our power alone that will defeat this evil. Our ultimate weapon is not our guns, but our beliefs.

There is a myth that though we love freedom, others don't; that our attachment to freedom is a product of our culture; that freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law are American values or Western values; that Afghan women were content under the lash of the Taliban; that Saddam was somehow beloved by his people; that Milosevic was Serbia's savior. Members of Congress, ours are not Western values. They are the universal values of the human spirit, and anywhere--anywhere, anytime ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice is the same: freedom, not tyranny; democracy, not dictatorship; the rule of law, not the rule of the secret police.

The spread of freedom is the best security for the free. It is our last line of defense and our first line of attack.

And just as the terrorist seeks to divide humanity in hate, so we have to unify around an idea. And that idea is liberty.

We must find the strength to fight for this idea and the compassion to make it universal. Abraham Lincoln said, "Those that deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves."

And it is this sense of justice that makes moral the love of liberty.

I can really begin to like this guy, liberal as he is.

California and the woe of budget

My state is in a world of hurt, and it is everyone's fault except the Governor's. Just ask him, he'll tell you. He isn't responsible for a damn thing. Which sounds like a good reason to recall him, if you ask me.

You see, I'm a big fan of personal responsiblity. If I screwed up, then I screwed up; no need to try and blame someone else. Which is why the phrase "society is to blame" has always made my skin crawl. No, you stupid bastard, you are the one who robbed the damn bank, not society; now stand there and take it like a man. (Oh, sorry, you already did! That's why you're here....)

Anyway, here's the governor of the largest state in the Union. We have fiscal wealth that rivals that of other countries (what, seventh largest economy in the world, or something like that). And we are in a world of fiscal hurt and it is not the fault of the state's chief executive. That doesn't make sense. If a corporate CEO makes decisions that cost the company money, it's his fault. Nevermind the outside influences and such, the job of the CEO is to anticipate those occurences and plan accordingly. Failure to do so results in job failure, which in The Real World is known as, "You're fired!"

In the Artificial World (i.e., the "public sector"), that's never the case. You're not allowed to blame anyone for anything, which is why they have the reputation that they have, the rep of being selfish, lazy, uncaring, slow, etc. I've worked in the public sector for some fourteen years now, and I know that that for most the reputation is a lie. For others, it is earned and deserved. Gray Davis is one of the latter.

Let's face it, people, he panicked. When 9/11/01 happened, it was immediately foreseeable that nothing was going to be the same. We depend on our elected officials to respond accordingly. Instead, we saw many of them pretend that the only thing that was going to change was their ability to spend even more money. Enter, Gov Gray.

He has delayed, stalled, or ignored the state budget issues ever since he was first elected, nevermind his recent re-election. The former state controller, a fellow Democrat, even points this out. She warned him (and us) time and again that there was a reckoning a-comin', and the sooner we start to take care of it, the better.

But, no. Gray continued to spend. He didn't just spend on existing programs, he created new ones. He had a multi-billion dollar fund, financed from gasoline and other transporation taxes, from which he could dispense highway projects, presumably to those he owed, er, a favor to. More generously, this projects were special ones (to him) that he reserved the right to pick and choose. When the money started getting tight, this shifting of revenue continued.

Fiscal 2001-2002 was going to be tight, but nothing was done. Fiscal 2002-2003 was patched with lies, half-truths, borrowed money, and the complete ignoring of the budget crash already in progress. If you want to say that state Republicans are equally to blame for that lack of reaction (or responsibility), go ahead; lots of blame to go around. But Gray is The Boss, or so he continually trumpets. And his budget projections were spectacularly rosy, because, well, he wanted to get re-elected.

Know how he says he's not cutting funding for public safety? Liar! The budget for the California Highway Patrol has been chopped 10%, their academy has been shutdown, and some 500 or so officers have received letters that they are "surplus" and may be subject to layoff starting this coming September (the state's Department of Personnel Administration [DPA] has to give that much warning prior to layoffs occuring). In addition, some 300 non-officers of the CHP received a similar notice. It's an interesting letter; I'm holding one, the one addressed to me.

No cuts in public safety funding? Liar!

There is some illusion out there that the Governor didn't give any state workers a raise last year, that he held the fiscal line, and that a lot of state workers are pissed off because he's opposing a 5% raise. Wrong. Last year, state workers' unions agreed to waive a 5% raise. In return, the state would pay 100% of their retirement contribution. This was effectively a 5% raise, but on paper it didn't look like one; no one's gross pay increased, just their net take home. The deal was this would only last one year, that this year the retirement deduction would go back into effect and there would be a 5% raise to offset that, thus resulting in a tiny (1%?) increase in net, take home pay. That deal was signed, passed by the state legislature, and put into effect.

What Gray is trying to do now is renig on the deal. He wants the employee's to forego the 5% raise and pay 100% of their retirement contribution. This means an effective 5% pay cut from what people have been receiving for the last year. This is what the state employee unions are screaming about.

When the local shop steward explained the deal last year I laughed. I knew Gray would try and pull something like this, that he was paying for union support of his re-election. This is why I won't join the stupid state's union; it's so blatantly partisan, and so utterly shocked when it gets slapped in the face and stabbed in the back. Poor, silly bastards.

This is exactly what Gray did with the "energy crisis". He panicked, signed huge deals with the power companies, and was "shocked" when he saw how rotten the deal he had negotiated was. He's still trying to re-negotiate those contracts, poor silly bastard.

And people wonder why I want him recalled? For god's sake, he's worse that incompetant, he's dangerous. He took a massive surplus and turned it into a history-making state deficit. That was bad enough, but he knew it was coming. He hid the true size and knew it was going to get bigger. And bigger.

And bigger.

There are some 30+ states running deficits this year; California's is larger than all the others combined. California's deficit is larger than most state's entire budgets. It is so huge and out of control, the mind boggles.

My motorcycle will cost $400+ to register next year. That's one of Gray's "cures" for the deficit. To pay for the (coming) increase in other taxes, and because of the possibility that I'll be laid off, I can no longer afford the monthly payments for the motorcycle. I'm selling the motorcycle, dropping my 45mpg vehicle and converting to a 25mpg vehicle. The car is paid for, and after the registration increase will cost under $200 to register next year. Thus we see how tax increases will stimulate the economy.

And pigs can fly....

Please don't tell me that we can't afford a recall. It's a deficit of $38+ billion (rumors put it close to $50 billion, but those are rumors). The cost of a recall election is approximately $26 million. Do the math. The cost of this election will add 0.07% to the existing deficit. Whoopee. And well worth it to get rid of the Gray.

Please don't tell me this is a Republican plot to steal a legitimate election (egads, just like 2000....). In my mind, Gray stole the election. Face it, the Republicans nominated an idiot--and he came within a whisker of winning! If he had kept his mouth shut, he would have won. Plus, look at all the budget manipulation that Gray engaged in leading up to the election. There was already a deficit, but it ballooned (again and again) starting the day after his re-election. Hmm, odd, that.

Certainly, it can get worse. Frankly, I expect California to go bankrupt. That will make for an interesting situation. Exactly, how does a state go bankrupt? Fiscally, I mean, because at a governmental level, we're already morally bankrupt.

UPDATE:

I forgot a few details. In the CHP, lieutenants and above have been given a 10% pay cut; sergeants got a 5% pay cut. Remember what Gray loves to say and repeat, no cuts in public safety. 'Tis the big fib, I think.

Do not tell me that this "twarts the will of the people". The People signed the recall petitions. If those signatures pass muster and the recall makes it to the ballot, The Will of the People will speak again. If Gray is tossed out on his ass it will be due to the "will of the people."

That entire "will of the people" argument, coming from politicians like Gray, makes me nauseous. Prop 13, the one that cut property taxes almost 25 years ago, was the will of the people, yet public officials like Gray continue to lament about it, fight against it, and seek ways around it. His concern for the people extends precisely one step short of his concern for his own political career. That is, he is concerned about The People only when, and in the context of, it furthers his own political goals.

Anti-American Pollsters

Opinion Journal has this editorial from Fouad Ajami, which reads in part:

In the days that followed the attacks of Sept. 11, a young Palestinian gave expression to the image America holds out in places where its shadow falls: the boy passing out sweets in celebration of America's grief wondered aloud as to the impact of the bombings on his ability to get a U.S. visa. He felt no great contradiction. He had no feeling of affection or loyalty for the land he yearned to migrate to. He grew up to the familiar drums of anti-Americanism. He had implicated America in his life's circumstances. You can't reason with his worldview. You can only wish for him deliverance from his incoherence--or go there, questionnaire in hand, and return with dispatches of people at odds with American policies. You can make foreigners say the sort of things about America you wanted to say yourself.

Very good point. Something to think about when the next Pew survey comes out.

Let's have a laugh

Oh, she's upset:

Is the ghost of Sen. Joe McCarthy alive and well in Hollywood? That is certainly on the minds of many outspoken liberals in Tinsel-town these days. The latest conspiracy theory focuses on the just-announced axing by ABC of very vocal anti-Iraq war activist Janeane Garofalo's new sitcom, ''Slice o' Life.''

Though the alphabet network had given Garo-falo and Universal Tele-vision a thumbs up on the show for next season, network execs changed their minds, telling Daily Variety and other industry outlets it was ''the direction of the series story line'' that led to the dumping of ''Slice''--just days before the show's pilot was scheduled to be taped in Vancouver, British Columbia.

A source close to Garofalo tells this column the actress and comedian was furious by the last-minute change and believes it's yet another example ''of a network bowing to the perceived power of the Bush administration. ... Janeane is convinced her politics and all the hate mail the right-wing lobby stirred up during the war is what is behind all this.''

What makes this funny is that it wasn't all that long ago that she was crowing that her anti-war (anti-freedom?) stance was the reason the series was picked up in the first place. Now that's the reason she lost the job. Puh-leez, can we make up our minds here? Sorta like Mike "I cannot tell the truth even if it kills you" Moore bragging about his great change of fortune when Icon Productions opted to finance his next pack of crap, only to also latter change their minds.

Midway

Sixty-one years ago, World War II was raging and the pivotal battle in the Pacific began, namely the Battle of Midway. I like to remember this battle because it is arguably the point around which the entire war, in the Pacific and in Europe, turned. US defeat here would have meant a dramatically different war against the Japanese. Oh, we probably still would have won, but when? How much longer would it have taken? If the Japanese plan had succeeded, and their forces had come out more or less intact, how would that have effected battles that were yet to come? And if we had to devote more resources to the Pacific, how would that have effected our European campaign? I submit the obvious, that things would have been very, very different, up to and including a less-than happy outcome to the entire war.

Midway also illustrates the entire notion of the "fog of war." The US won by a combination of skill, courage, determination, pluck, and sheer luck. In turn, the Japanese lost for almost the exact same reasons, only in their case the luck was almost all bad. Before Midway, the Japanese roamed and ruled the Pacific. After Midway, they were on the losing end of things. Yamamoto had tried to guarantee his country twelve months of victory following Pearl Harbor; he could only deliver six.

After Midway, the US could starve Japan because bit by bit, we controlled the Pacific. Cut off from external supplies, Japan's war machine began to starve. After Midway, the outcome of WW2 was a foregone conclusion. Oh, there were still times here and there where it could have been different, but the key, the focal point, was Midway. I've yet to identify a similar event in Europe; the closest -- and perhaps the one, only I don't know it yet -- was when Russia stopped the German advance. Right there, at that moment, the outcome for the War of Europe was a foregone conclusion, because from then on Germany was on the retreat. Some silly mistakes by the Allies here and there almost allowed a surrender that would have left Germany intact, but that was not meant to be.

And if you are really into this stuff, consider: I have read the the Battle of Hampton Roads (USS Monitor vs. CSS Virginia [the Merrimac]) was actually the key battle of of the US Civil War. Most historians focus on Gettysburg, but the argument is that at Hampton Roads, the Confederates almost succeeded in breaking the Union blockade. If they had done so, they would have had a guaranteed supply route to their European benefactors, namely the British. It would not have lasted, as the North could outproduce the South, would have built more warships, and eventually sealed the Confederates back up. In the meanwhile, though, there would have been a growing chance that the British would enter the war on the Confederate side. It goes without saying that if that had happened, the United States would be a very different place today.

Gettysburg was where General Lee's winning streak ended, but that end became inevitable at Hampton Roads. Think about it.

Depressing

Does anyone else find this depressing?

Air France's Concorde made its next-to-the-last commercial flight Friday, an emotional trans-Atlantic journey completed in 3 1/2 hours as the supersonic jetliner nears the end of a pioneering chapter in aviation.

Much like our retreating from space since landing on the Moon, we are now retreating from the sky. Early airliners were noisy, dangerous, etc., but we kept going until we finally created the DC-3. They complained about the Boeing 747, but it created the present age of inexpensive air travel. The Concorde was never meant to be the be-all end-all of supersonic flight, but no one ever followed up on the idea. Instead, we regulated it out of existence in the US...for suspect (at best) reasons.

Cover up

So there's this woman in Florida who insists that Florida DMV is violating her right to religious freedom because they insist she remove her veil for her driver's license picture. How this is so, I do not know, especially given that driving is not a right. If you can't comply with the applicable laws for obtaining a driver's license, and Florida requires a full-face photo, then you don't get a DL. Seems simple.

But no, assorted and sundry lobby and "civil rights" groups feel otherwise. What makes this all the more interesting is the sidebar attached to this CNN article. See, the woman is asserting that revealing her face would violate Islamic religious law, a higher authority as it were. But, the sidebar has this to say about photo ID's in established, Muslim countries:

Driver's identification rules in Muslim nations:
Saudi Arabia: Women aren't allowed to drive
Iran: Women wear a traditional chador, which does not cover the face.
Egypt: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
United Arab Emirates: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Oman: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Kuwait: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Qatar: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Bahrain: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Jordan: Women can drive if their faces are covered but do not cover their face in I.D. pictures

Now, don't mean to hold up any of these Arab states are paragons of human rights, but these are countries where Islamic law is often The Law. And they require the veil to come off for photo ID. So who is the higher authority, the "experts" her attorneys will trundle into court, or the existing laws and standards of Islamic states?

Oh, and besides, turns out she's a recent convert, so who is telling her that it is an absolute, no exception, that her face remain covered for "modesty."

Linux on a Laptop

I've dabbled with Linux before, but this time I think it may be serious. Why? Because I have this little old Gateway 600 laptop and it occured ot me that it is the near-equal of my main desktop computer. So why shouldn't it be able to run Linux?

I downloaded Red Hat v9, burned the CD's, put the first one in the laptop's CD drive and...voila, it runs. Not a single install or operational issue so far. The only feature I haven't tried yet is the wireless NIC. The onboard wire NIC is eth0, and the wireless shows as eth1, so the system recognizes it, even correctly ID's the hardware, so sometime this week I'll give it a shot.

I had a brief issue creating a FAT16 partition that would allow me to move files from the Windows XP side to the RH Linux side. Seems that users under Linux couldn't mount the partition, while the root (superuser) account could. Only root didn't have permission to modify the permissions. Weird. A one minute search via Google provided the answer, the correct syntax to add to the fstab file, and voila, problem solved.

(fstab is the file the system parses on boot to tell it how to mount what filesystems -- drives and drive partitions. The line I had to add was "/dev/hda6 /mnt/fat vfat users,noauto,umask=000 0 0". Don't ask me -- yet. It just works.)

Well, no duh!

Why is 'Idol' beats Oscars in viewers surprising? That show had a veneer pretense of not being manipulated toward a conclusion, whereas the Oscars had a lying bastard win an award for best documentary when the tripe he produced clearly was not.

But, hey, as he says, "How can there be inaccuracy in comedy? You know." (Scroll down a bit to read the relevant transcript). So we shan't take any of his sputters too seriously; in fact, not seriously at all.

Day of Defeat

I play this game waaaaay too much. After most of a week of reading torts, contracts, and crim law (oh my!), few things were more relaxing than charging into Thunder, trusty Thompson in hand, blasting away. If you like first person shooters, own a copy of Half-Life, and are willing to play on-line, then you owe it to yourself to go here and download the Day of Defeat mod. Do it for the liberation of humanity...well, if you play on the Allies side, at least. Remember: Back the attack!

Man in Space

See, I agree with this guy when he says:

The bottom line is that the shuttle is too old. ... It would be very difficult to make sure it is in good shape. We ought to just stop going into space until we get a good vehicle. If we aren’t willing to spend the money to do that, then we should be ashamed of ourselves.

How do you honestly dispute the opinion of the guy who designed the shuttle (and darn near everything that came before it)? This stuff looks far more interesting than just cranking out another Columbia-like shuttle.

Don't shoot me, I only type here

All right, I've shamelessly neglected this site, these pages, and the scant attention I ever attracted. Sorry. Is that sufficient? Apologies always seem to make up for things...don't they? C'mon, it's intentions that are important, not results! Haven't you been listening?

Sorry. Again. First year of law school...done! Study mates are taking a full course load during the summer. They want to graduate a year early, bless their little advocate hearts. I just want to survive, thank you very much. Besides, this is the last summer with my daughter; she wings to the USAF come August, just about the time I start Law School Year Two. So, I think I'll leave myself more or less Free this summer, thank you very much. Again.

Quoting Tommy Lee Jones in "The Fugitive": My my my my my my my. So much has happened in recent weeks. We clobbered Iraq. Oh, sure, that was expected, but this fast? With no significant resistance? We paused and The Media lept upon it like we were staggering from a body blow, but really it was 1) the weather, and 2) some more weather. Then, Saddam did pass from the field. Where is Saddam? Reduced to molecules and floating about, or skulking in a cave of one sort or another. I don't care which. He be gone and that's all right by me.

Ah well. Enough for the moment. Time to peruse the news I've been missing....

Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who!


What Monty Python Character are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

You're Insanly Smart

What type of Insanity are YOU?
Test by Snow Katt#101

Fools abound

Is it me, but do the people in this story exceptionally dim:

Despite a recent "shoot-to-kill" warning from the military, anti-war protesters are planning to infiltrate the coastal property of Vandenberg Air Force Base near Santa Barbara soon.

[...]

"The only time a law-enforcement official should shoot is when his life is in danger," [Elden "Bud"] Boothe said. "We are in the peace movement. We are not going to endanger anyone. . . . I suppose they could shoot you, but they would be doing it illegally. But that doesn't help you if you're dead."

Vandenberg security officials recently warned protesters about its policy of using "deadly force" to take out trespassers who may endanger equipment or personnel. The base, which does not have a fence around it, covers 99,000 acres along the California coast near Santa Barbara.

Lt. Kelly Gabel, a spokeswoman for the base, said the deadly force policy is standard for all U.S. military bases, but the warning for Vandenberg protesters was made after officials heard about possible "backcountry incursions."

Previous Vandenberg trespassers have been corralled and arrested in an almost scripted manner. But in the post-Sept. 11 world, Gabel said, someone walking cross country toward a military base with a backpack "takes on new meaning."

"A backpack could be a bomb or a chemical agent," Gabel said. "We simply do not know what the intentions are when someone breaks into our property. Our security forces will take the minimum force necessary, including up to deadly force, to protect the property and personnel here."

Gabel said the security forces are "not trigger happy" but warned that "there is a potential for danger here."

It's a military base, "Bud"! (And given that he's a WW2 vet, he should know what that means.) It's not "law enforcement," it's "base security," and you're violating it.

How special!

Now this is colorful:

In a unique form of opposition, some protesters at the Federal Building staged a "vomit in,'' by heaving on the sidewalks and plaza areas in the back and front of the building to show that the war in Iraq made them sick, according to a spokesman.

Obviously some children attempting to be creative. Fun.

"We are not dealing with peaceful men."

And so it comes to this. Well really, what did you expect? Oh, you in the corner, the carping little ninnie who occasionally does an infomercial, STFU. For the rest....

Once upon a time, I was a cop. Among other things, I was a crisis (hostage) negotiator. Not that I really had to sit and perform The Real Deal, but lots of training, lots of practise, lots of scenarios. One of the training sessions was with the FBI, an agency that has learned a thing or two from failed negotiations (see Waco and/or Ruby Ridge). One of the things they learned was to resist the action imperative. That is, don't do something just because you feel that you must do something.

For many, that would appear to be the case with Iraq. We don't have to do anything, the reasoning goes, so why are we?

Well, the FBI was also careful to point out that sometimes matters require more than mere talk. You can't always talk that bank robber into giving up peacefully. You can't always talk that insane parent out of killing their own child. And you certainly can't always negotiate a peaceful settlement with terrorists, especially those whose primary aim in life is to see you in a grave. Which they can then use as an open air toilet just to remember the sweet sensation of watching you die.

No, these people are, ahem, difficult to negotiate with.

Negotiation pre-supposes good faith on both sides. No, correction. A successful negotiation pre-supposes good faith on both sides. In Iraq, Hussein negotiates with his fingers crossed. At best. At worse, his hands are under the table loading a pistol, getting ready to hand it to some useful idiot, who will then put the the business end of that bullet into your brain.

Everyone acknowledges that Hussein is that not-rare-enough creature, a true human monster. Do a Google search. Review the outrages of Saddam Hussein.

So why isn't everyone all for kicking the bastard out? I think the reasons are simple. Those who oppose action in Iraq are 1) anti-Bush, 2) anti-capitalism, 3) anti-American, and 4) have too much personal stock invested in Hussein's dictatorship. Amazingly, whenever you start a conversation with someone opposed to US action against Iraq, when you've pegged them into a corner with lots of reality slaps, their "argument" disintegrates into variations of a theme. Theme = "Well, Bush isn't really President anyway!"

So that's Number 1 with a bullet.

Number 2 is an objection to our nation's success. Jealous? More like anger. "Damnit," they seem to mutter, "in theory our Marxist-Socialist state should be the utopia of the world, rather than a degenerate sink hole of corruption and murder. It must be the fault of those damn capitalists. Death to the capitalists!"

Puh-leez! Did any of those notice that the "new Europe" being discussed are all former members of the Soviet bloc? That they lived under real and horrid dictators? That almost every single one of them is saying, "Yeah, kick that little bastard out!"

Number 3 is an extension of Number 2, but more focused. Some capitalist societies are all right, like France, because they suck so much money off their private industries that they can't survive without government subsidies (review any European industry that attempts to compete outside its own national borders; see as an example, Airbus International). In America, though, capitalism is a blood sport, so those bastards must be stopped! So obviously, again, those pesky Yankee dogs must die.

And Number 4 is the one that hurts them the most. Yes, Mary Jane, Gulf War II is about oil. It's about French interest in Iraqi oil. It's about Russian interest in Iraqi oil. The last thing it's about is Dubya's interest in any Iraqi oil, except to make sure that money made off that oil actually helps build the country, rather than a bunch of extravagent palaces that are grand excuses for hidden arsenals (at worse) or huge examples of a driving need for ego-boost (at best).

Gads, there are more reasons to plow that man under, and there are stupider stated "reasons" against doing so. But what I find fascinating, what I think expresses the issue so very clearly, is that a 12+ year cease fire has been violated since roughly, oh, day one of that cease fire. Hussein never surrendered. We agreed to stop shooting at him and his men if he agreed to live up to certain promises.

He never has.

Ergo, no more cease fire, and Gulf War II is actually the conclusion of Gulf War I, in much the same way that WW2 was actually the end of WW1 (and WW2 didn't end until the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, but that's history for another day). This whole sad affair with the United Nations reminds me of the League of Nations, which was supposed to prevent WW2 from ever happening. Hitler calmly rebuilt a huge military force, in flagrant violation of surrender terms from WW1, and all anyone sought was appeasement. A certain wine country built a Maginot Line, stood behind it, and ignored all treaty violations happening to the east. They became interested only when a German tank rumbled along the champs de'lyse. Damnit, ze are annoying ze flies!

So, no, I'd rather we not just sit around and wait until Hussein got a fly up his nether, and decided to scratch the itch by popping a Scud loaded with something unpleasant onto Israel. You know, that country he refers to -- to this day -- as "the Zionist entity." See how peaceful he is?

Or hands off to his buddy, Osama bin Hidin' (or one of his comrades), something equally nasty. Which in turn, because we are one big open country (thank God, and I don't really want to change it...much -- doh!) that Nasty Thing ends up in one US city or another.

So, let's all STFU, lock and load, and get to work.

Oriana Fallaci

This is great. A brief clip:

[C]ontrary to the pacifists who never yell against Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden and only yell against George W. Bush and Tony Blair...I know war very well. I know what it means to live in terror, to run under air strikes and cannonades, to see people killed and houses destroyed, to starve and dream of a piece of bread, to miss even a glass of drinking water. And (which is worse) to be or to feel responsible for someone else's death. I know it because I belong to the Second World War generation and because, as a member of the Resistance, I was myself a soldier. .... As a consequence, I hate [war] as the pacifists in bad or good faith never will. I loathe it. Every book I have written overflows with that loathing, and I cannot bear the sight of guns. At the same time, however, I don't accept the principle, or should I say the slogan, that "All wars are unjust, illegitimate." The war against Hitler and Mussolini and Hirohito was just, was legitimate. The Risorgimento wars that my ancestors fought against the invaders of Italy were just, were legitimate. And so was the war of independence that Americans fought against Britain. So are the wars (or revolutions) which happen to regain dignity, freedom. I do not believe in vile acquittals, phony appeasements, easy forgiveness. Even less, in the exploitation or the blackmail of the word Peace. When peace stands for surrender, fear, loss of dignity and freedom, it is no longer peace. It's suicide.

It's all brilliant. Quick, go read!

A great opportunity to "shut up"?

Ah, from the seat of democracy....

Branding joint letters signed by Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic with EU members Britain, Spain, Italy, Denmark and Portugal, and by the so-called Vilnius 10 group of EU and NATO candidates "infantile" and "dangerous," [French President Jacques] Chirac said: "They missed a great opportunity to shut up."

Why is it that the most liberal, most left-leaning, most proudly "open-minded" strive the hardest to tell their opposition to just shut up and go away? I mean, these are the very people who promote diversity and call for us all to embrace other ideas, yet they get truly testy when they meet opposition. Witness, er, Chirac.

Yes, yes, a weasel. A beeeeeg one.

ROFL!

Instapundit reports, I get a great laugh. Quoting a piece from Opinion.Telegraph:

For the first time in the build-up to action against Iraq, the newspapers of the Anglosphere are united in a blizzard of abuse against the French. In Paris, Le Monde has finally been obliged to translate Bart Simpson's phrase that is now on everyone's lips.

The French, say the mass-circulation papers in Britain and America, are nothing but "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" (les primates capitulards toujours en quete de fromage), and, you know what, I couldn't agree more.

Les primates capitulards toujours en quete de fromage....

Damn, I like that!

Simply Amazing

Let me see if I understand this correctly....

Last month the Belgian senate amended the 1993 "universal jurisdiction" law to let prosecutors to investigate suspected war criminals even if they do not live in Belgium, removing the restriction which has so far prevented them investigating cases abroad.

So, Belgium has just decided that They have exclusive authority, jurisdiction, etc., over the entire world? Their senate passes a law and, poof voila, they can -- literally -- hold court over the rest of the planet.

Interesting.

Sounds awful damn unilateral (or, as Instapundit put it, imperialistic) to me, little self-righteous ninnies. Oh, I forgot. They belong to the Axis of Weasels, even if it is only in Mini-Me minion mode.

Hey, I don't think I understand the implications of this! We can just get the House and Senate to pass a bill, one that Bush is sure to sign. We'll give the US exclusive right to prosecute anyone anywhere for anything. Then we trot right into Belgium because an imperialist power they are responsible for five and eight million deaths. Oh, sure, King Leopold is long dead, but so what? Reality doesn't interfere with them, why should it both us?

Oh, and by strange coincidence in that link about Belgium being an imperialist nation, it lists the top six. They are:

1 - ENGLAND
2 - FRANCE
3 - GERMANY
4 - BELGIUM
5 - PORTUGAL
6 - NETHERLANDS

Lookee there, the Axis of Weasels all in a row! I feel so...nauseous.

Can you say it better?

And Judge William Young said to Richard Reid:

This is the sentence that is provided for by our statutes. It is a fair and a just sentence. It is a righteous sentence. Let me explain this to you.

We are not afraid of any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. There is all too much war talk here. And I say that to everyone with the utmost respect.

Here in this court where we deal with individuals as individuals, and care for individuals as individuals, as human beings we reach out for justice.

You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier gives you far too much stature. Whether it is the officers of government who do it or your attorney who does it, or that happens to be your view, you are a terrorist.

And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not treat with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists.

We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.

So war talk is way out of line in this court. You're a big fellow. But you're not that big. You're no warrior. I know warriors. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal guilty of multiple attempted murders.

In a very real sense Trooper Santiago had it right when first you were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and where the TV crews were and you said you're no big deal. You're no big deal.

What your counsel, what your able counsel and what the equally able United States attorneys have grappled with and what I have as honestly as I know how tried to grapple with, is why you did something so horrific. What was it that led you here to this courtroom today? I have listened respectfully to what you have to say. And I ask you to search your heart and ask yourself what sort of unfathomable hate led you to do what you are guilty and admit you are guilty of doing.

And I have an answer for you. It may not satisfy you. But as I search this entire record it comes as close to understanding as I know.

It seems to me you hate the one thing that to us is most precious. You hate our freedom. Our individual freedom. Our individual freedom to live as we choose, to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe as we individually choose.

Here, in this society, the very winds carry freedom. They carry it everywhere from sea to shining sea. It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom. So that everyone can see, truly see that justice is administered fairly, individually, and discretely.

It is for freedom's seek that your lawyers are striving so vigorously on your behalf and have filed appeals, will go on in their, their representation of you before other judges. We care about it. Because we all know that the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties.

Make no mistake though. It is yet true that we will bear any burden; pay any price, to preserve our freedoms.

Look around this courtroom. Mark it well. The world is not going to long remember what you or I say here. Day after tomorrow it will be forgotten. But this, however, will long endure. Here, in this courtroom, and courtrooms all across America, the American people will gather to see that justice, individual justice, justice, not war, individual justice is in fact being done.

The very President of the United States through his officers will have to come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters can be judged, and juries of citizens will gather to sit and judge that evidence democratically, to mold and shape and refine our sense of justice.

See that flag, Mr. Reid? That's the flag of the United States of America. That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag still stands for freedom. You know it always will. Custody, Mr. Officer. Stand him down.

A bit more is right here but that's the best.

Now that is a judge who gets my vote.

I live

Shocking, I say. Proof that strange things happen to anyone, because I have survived the holidays. Yippee!

Actually, this entry is more of a test. Seems I have successfully downloaded ISO images, burned the requisite CD's, and installed from said CD's Red Hat Linux 8.0. Easiest Linux install I've ever run. Recognized everything in my system without a hiccup. Easily trumped past attemps with Mandrake (8.1), Corel Linux (1.0), and one other the name of which flees my sagging brain even as I type. Ah well.

And will wonders never cease, Blogger doesn't seem to mind the rendition of Mozilla that RH installed. Mozilla under Win2k Pro doesn't get along with Blogger. Here, no problem. Go figure.

Am I converting full time? Dunno. Doubt it. Need Win2k on the laptop for school. For home, though, as I kick one or more of The Brood off the computer, I'll be rebooting into RH for more of a look-see. I'll probably even run Partition Magic on the second box and install it there, too. That should give it a run for its money....

(Money? Ha! It was free!)

Bah + Humbug

It's just a fact of life and it is time to face up to it: I don't like Christmas. I dislike the season. I don't like the fake cheer. I loathe the shopping. I despise the entire commercial facade. And it's too friggin' cold and wet to go riding!

I. Don't. Like. It. Not, any of it. I am Scrooge, I am The Grinch. Look not upon my pre-Christmas countenance (spl?), thou shalt be turned to stone.

There are personal reasons behind much of this. The ex merrily decided she wanted Kat for both of the weekends leading up to The Day, and then also wanted her for The Day. "Mine mine mine, she's all mine!" was the tone. Maybe she's suddenly realizing that the USAF enlistment she so studiously worked for Kat to sign means 1) this is the final Christmas with her daughter and 2) there is the very real possibility that her one and only daughter will be going In Harm's Way. Well, duh; it's the military. They kill people and break things, that's their job. And sometimes it happens to them. No doubt as far as the ex is concerned if it happens to Kat it will be My fault (capital M, loud voice, screeching tone). How? Anyone divorcee can tell you.

But, enough of that, because despite it all come tomorrow my affinity for Scrooge and Grinch will continue. I'll giggle and roast up a fine feast for any and all who come by. My heart will swell multiple times it's regular size. I will embrace the day and the spirit and all it means, both religious and spirit. I can count the reasons.

1) Kat told her mom to sog off and is with me for the day, bwahaha!

2) I'm alive, and if you're reading this chances are you are too! This is always a good thing. Life is preferable to death, because with life there is always a chance. Once you're dead, pretty much that's the end of everything. Recycle, reincarnate, try again.

3) .... Oh, add your own.

It's a short list and it's more than enough, even with the assorted fucktards in the Middle East, the blithering idiots in the US, and the wallowing indecisives throughout the world. In the coming year we have the opportunity to spread the gospel according to democracy and capitalism, praise be!

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night!

To Keep and Bear Arms

The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, San Francisco, ruled today that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms. Their ruling will affect cases in nine western states and is in near-direct opposition to a ruling out of the US circuit court in New Orleans that says yes there is such a right. No doubt the fight will rise to the US Supreme Court, forcing that group to confront the 2nd Amendment.

For myself, I think it's a silly decision. Backed by lots of argument in support of the ruling, but not a lot of substance from the opposition. Such is the nature of things. Eugene Volokh got quoted in a news piece about it. No doubt he'll have something more to say on his own Blog.

Guns, especially handguns, are a lousy way to actually kill someone, but they're wonderful for self-defense. Not so very long ago, the statistics were that only 11% of the bullets fired by "the bad guys" actually hit a target. Police were better; they hit 20% of the time. Those numbers are around six years old, I don't know what the updated stats would be.

Think about that. A cop fires five times at a bad guy. Statistics say that only one bullet will hit. No too good. Applying general statistics to a single case is a bad idea, though, and I can think of three shootings that illustrate the effectiveness of guns, handguns in particular.

Two San Joaquin county deputies confront a wacko in a parking lot. Literally. He's 5150, which is California-speak for mentally unhinged. He starts whacking on one deputy with a hammer. The other pulls out his 9mm pistol and opens fire. Shoots until he's empty. 16 rounds. Point blank. Every single bullet hits the guy and he keeps nailing. Second deputy reloads, fires three more times, 5150 finally gets tired, lays down, and dies. Victim deputy survives the assault and, as far as I know, is back on the job.

Same week, Sacramento county deputy goes out into a park to talk to a young man sitting on the lawn. It's after dark, early morning, park is closed, kid's not supposed to be there, kid jumps up and turns around, bringing a chopped down rifle to bear on the deputy. Kid's first shot misses, allowing the deputy to draw his .40-caliber and fire. Once. Dumps the kid to the ground but the kid neither a) dies or 2) drops the rifle. He's still trying to shoot. As I recall when the deputy keys his radio to scream for help you can hear him screaming at the kid to drop the rifle. Second shot from the deputy. No result. Third deliberate shot from the deputy. This one is low, in the leg, blows a knee, almost literally cutting the lower leg off. Kid still in the fight. Fourth and final shot and the fight is over, kid dead.

Politics and legitimacy of the shooting aside, there are reasons why those four NYPD cops fired so many times. In California the police can carry hollowpoint ammunition. In New York, at the time, they were firing 9mm full metal jacket, "ball" ammo, notorious for drilling straight through a target.

Third shooting was in Lodi and in this instance bad guy exits van with his "girlfriend." He's holding her in the classic hostage pose, back to him, holding a shotgun to her head. Squares off against a flock of cops. He's clearly trying to get away (and I say clearly because all of this was caught real-time by an overhead news helicopter). But his shotgun just drifts away from her head and a cop takes the shot. He goes straight down because that shot is from a .223-caliber rifle. It has cut his spine and he is Right Now a parapalegic for life. He's down but not out because he raises the shotgun and fires back at the officers. More shots. Bullets pinging into him, including at least one more .223 round and a host of .40-caliber pistol shots, including one to the face.

Result: He's alive and well and a long-term member of the California penal system. He is a cripple for life, is minus one testicle, poops into a sack, has one mostly useless arm, and has had reconstructive surgery on his face. But he's alive. (Oh, he was charged with assault on a peace officer [stole a cop's gun], kidnapping, auto theft, felony evasion [this was at the end of a pursuit], attempted murder of a peace officer [during the pursuit he shot a police officer once in the leg; officer has recovered and is back on duty], etc. Long list. Sorry, but I don't know what his plea-bargain was for, only that he's only for a looooong time.)

Why all this gruesome stuff? Because those are shootings I have some immediate knowledge of, and in each case shooting The Bad Guy was only marginally effective. There are legendary stories of people taking upwards of 40 hits and still fighting. The notorious FBI shootout in Miami resulted in dead Feds, both killed after their killer had already been hit in the chest, severing his aorta. He was dead, just didn't care, and killed some agents before he croaked off.

On the other hand, guns are terrific when you don't have to fire 'em. Every day people use a gun to defend themselves, and never pull the trigger. Anti-gun people constantly rage about the number of people killed by guns of all kinds (especially Evil and Dreadful Handguns, of course), but refuse to acknowledge that the staggering and overwhelming percentage of guns are never fired in self-defense. Merely brandishing the weapon is sufficient to deter the attacker. He runs, gets caught, goes to jail. Cops use their guns daily, yet seldom actually have to make them go "bang" at anyone. Guns are amazingly effective for self-defense because you don't have to actually fire them.

This fact keeps getting lost on those who say individuals don't have a right to keep and bear arms.

If the logic of the 9th Circuit prevails, I can't help but wonder the outcome will be. A universal banning of personal possession of firearms? And when they're collected, it's not just that only criminals will have guns, it will mean that all those hundreds of thousands of people who annually use a gun to protect themselves -- all without firing a shot -- won't have that means of defense.

I can't begin to imagine what this will mean to the crime rate.

Testing...

Nope, you don't have a drop of english blood in your body. In fact, you're probably American ;) Y'know that little island next to France? Y'know...Europe? No? Ohwell. We love you really - have a cucumber sandwich!

How British are you?

this quiz was made by alanna

And I thought I was doing so well, too....

Practitioners of a religion of peace

Open Season:

A bombing and a failed missile attack on a civilian plane point to a widening war without rules.

It was the day before Chanukah, the Jewish festival of lights, and the Paradise Hotel off the coast of Kenya was packed with Israeli vacationers. Justine Mundu, a watchman, had been on duty for two and a half hours when a green Mitsubishi Pajero made a screeching turn into the main gate. The crash shattered the car bomb’s windshield, but its occupants just “drove on,” Mundu said. “Three seconds later I heard the explosion.” Another witness, David Kilonzi, said, “I saw the hotel roof blown off.” Moments after the blast, some witnesses also reported seeing a light aircraft fly over the hotel, dropping clusters of small bombs that incinerated some remaining rooms on the seaward side. The Israeli-owned hotel was soon a smoking ruin--a bright orange inferno set against the deep blue Indian Ocean, the white sand and rustling green palms.

Don't forget, we're supposed to understand and relate to the issues that cause such desperate actions.

A religion of peace?

From CNN:

KADUNA, Nigeria -- Dozens have been killed in northern Nigeria in rioting that erupted after a newspaper suggested the Prophet Mohammad would have approved of the Miss World beauty contest.

The death toll in the town of Kaduna was an estimated 105 with a further 521 injured taken to hospital, aid workers said on Friday.

Angry mobs in the mainly-Muslim city 600 kilometres (375 miles) northwest of Lagos burnt Christian churches and rampaged through the streets stabbing, bludgeoning and burning bystanders to death.

Shops were looted, cars were overturned and scorched while makeshift barricades were set alight. Fires also burned in mosques and windows were smashed.

Shehu Sani of the Kaduna-based Civil Rights Congress told The Associated Press he watched a crowd stab a young man, force a petrol-filled tyre around his neck and burn him alive. Sani said he saw three other bodies elsewhere in the city.

I don't understand this.

I'll even grant you that all religions, at some time, have done similar atrocities. But this strikes me as beyond the pale. A newspaper remarks that the Prophet would have picked a beauty queen, and the religious fanatics go berserk in an orgy of rioting. "Orgy" is precisely the word for people who drag people from their cars and beat them to death. Who stab someone and, not content that he'll probably bleed to death, stick a gas-filled tired around his neck, light it off, and watch him burn to death. You watch people behave like this and they cease to be human. Not because of where they are. Not because of their race and ethnicity. Because of what they're doing.

And they do this was crying, "God is great!"

God is great, throw another infidel on the fire! Better than shrimp.

A religion of peace ... my ass. Religions go through phases, or so it seems, and their fundamentalist members can't adopt to the modern world. Here is an entire continent caught in the throes of the 20th century (not yet the 21st for them, really), and fundamentalist members of Islam can't hack it. Because of the inherent nature of the religion, binding itself to governing people in all aspects of their life, these members have inordinate influence. What do I mean? Islam is not just a religion, it is a method of government. Islam doesn't just rule the mosques of Saudi Arabia, it rules the country. This is the norm for Islam.

Contrast with, say, the US. It is arguable that we are a Christian nation, that many of the laws of the land (including the Constitution) are built on Christian principles. But while a priest may hold sway over his parish, he doesn't run the city (unless he's elected, of course). A bishop is not a state governor, the Pope is not President. Oh, oops, let's not forget that priest, bishop, and pope are designations of a particular flavor of Christianity. No doubt a Baptist will take offense, let alone a (gasp) Protestant. Bring on the Lutherans!

That Christian-based document, the Constitution, even has a clause that says that Christians can't run the whole show (First Amendment, separation of church and state, etc.). This would be antithecal for the Muslim world. They do not separate the two, church and state. They are one and the same.

And people riot, cry out "God is Great!" and kill hundreds.

3,000 Americans die and they cheer, clap, revel in the glory. A great victory, they say, worth of celebration. Even if I buy the argument, that they are celebrating a strike back against the Great Satan, the Oppressor of the Universe, that it's just peachy to slaughter people going about their every day lives, as opposed to military forces, I contract that with a gory battle in US history. Forgive me, but at the moment I can't remember the specific name of the battle involved, but it shouldn't be too hard to find.

World War 2, the Pacific War. The US has taken an island and the Japanese want it back. They send an invasion fleet. We hit it with all we've got and essentially blow 'em out of the water. Warships and transports, all sent to the bottom of the sea. Now the unanticipated occurs. The overwhelming majority of the Japanese landing troops survive. They're floating in the ocean. The water is warm; odds of survival are exceptionally high. Worse, for the Allies, the tide is carrying them right toward the beach they want to invade! In all likelihood, they will come ashore and the battle will be joined, precisely what sinking the Japanese fleet should have prevented.

A grim decision is reached, orders issued. For the next several hours, Navy and Army fighters and bombers strafe and bomb all those men floating helplessly in the water, killing thousands, leaving the chunks and survivors for the sharks.

I have read several accounts of this battle. Not a single one revels in it as a great victory. Not a single one cries in God's glory for the thousands slaughtered. In my mind, this was far worse than nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki, yet was equally necessary in the context of an all-out war! Accounts tell of men returning from a single strafing run and refusing to do another. No one was ordered to make any of these strikes, mind you; all had to volunteer, understanding what they were being asked to do: wholesale slaughter. Many volunteered, accepting the necessity, and perhaps heeding the classic questions regarding who will do the hard things. "If not now, when? If not me, who?" And no doubt many reveled in the blood. But there was no widespread cheering and clapping and leaping about advancing behavior, reveling not in the victory but in the slaughter!

So excuse me if I have my doubts about a "religion of peace." All religions may claim that mantle; these practioners, in Nigeria and elsewhere, make a mockery of it.

Tests, Part 2 & 3

CLAVDIVS You're not the fool everyone takes you for. You put on a show to stay under the radar. Underneath your bumbling exterior, you are a shrewd and calculating person. You don't enjoy being in the spotlight, but you can take charge if absolutely neccessary. But trust no one, not even your best friend, because you never know who might betray you. You were portrayed by Derek Jacobi.

Which I, Claudius Character are You? created by
Shiny Objects



Congratulations, you're San Francisco, the city of change.
What US city are you? Take the quiz by Girlwithagun.

Damn, I love the news!

This on MSNBC:

Iraq, facing a Friday deadline and the threat of war, accepted a tough new U.N. resolution that will return weapons inspectors to the country after nearly four years, the country’s U.N. ambassador said Wednesday. Baghdad’s approval of the resolution means inspectors should be on the ground in Iraq within a matter of days, although testing Saddam Hussein’s compliance could take months.

Damn, that makes things sound great, don't it? Only, while they report there are no conditions, Iraq tosses in their favorite kinds of conditions, qualifiers that only they can judge! And I quote from their letter:

We hereby ask you to inform the Security Council that we are prepared to receive the inspectors within the assigned timetable. The parties concerned should bear in mind that wer are in our holy month of Ramadan which means that the people are fasting, and this holy month will be followed by Muslim's Eid. [So we can stall a bit and a bit and a bit more because that's what we do, don'tcha know.] Nevertheless, we will cooperate with the concerned UN bodies and officials on the background of all this, and of the tripartite, French-Russian-China, statement. Dealing with the inspectors, the government of Iraq will, also, take into consideration, their way of conduct, the intentions of those who are ill-intentioned amongst them and their improper approach in showing respect to the people's national dignity, their independence and security, and their country's security, independence and sovereignty. [So don't send any American or British pig-boys; they are right out!] We are eager to see them perform their duties in accordance with the international law as soon as possible. If they do so, professionally and lawfully, without any premeditated intentions, the lairs' lies will be exposed to public opinion, and the declared objective of the Security Council will be achieved.

Emphasis and [snotty little bracket] comments are mine.

Just what is meant by "in accordance with international law"? Who defines if they're conduct is in compliance? Sounds like the same old qualifiers and stalls. And what would a letter from Iraq be without a little show at that bastard place, the Zionist Entity!

It will then become the lawful duty of the Security Council to lift the blockade and all other unjust sanctions on Iraq. If it does not, all the people's of good will in the world, in addition to Iraq, will tell it to do so. The SC will be compelled to before the public opinion and the law to activate paragraph 14 of its resolution No. 687, by applying it to the Zionist entity (Israel), and then, to all the Middle East region, to make it a region void of mass destruction weapons. The number of just people will, then, increase in the world, and Iraq's possibility of driving away the cawing of the crows of evil that daily raid its land, and kill Iraqis and destroy their property by their bombs. This will help the stability of the region and the world, if it is accompanied by a resolution that will not be based on double standards, to put an end to Zionist occupation of Palestine, and other occupied Arab territories, and if the warmongers stop their aggressions on the Muslims and the world.

So, get rid of Israel if you want peace from Iraq. And what "other occupied Arab territories" are they referring to?

Oh, the duplicity of diplomacy.

The Real Issue

James Q. Wilson writes about The Reform Islam Needs and asks, "The West reconciled religion and freedom. Can Muslims do the same?"

We are engaged in a struggle to defeat terrorism. I have no advice on how to win that struggle, but I have some thoughts as to why it exists. It is not, I think, because Islam is at war with the West or because Palestinians are trying to displace Israelis. The struggle exists, I think, because the West has mastered the problem of reconciling religion and freedom, while several Middle Eastern nations have not. The story of that mastery and that failure occupies several centuries of human history, in which one dominant culture, the world of Islam, was displaced by a new culture, that of the West.

This is a point I've tried to make several times, though not nearly as well as here. I tend to simply say, "They must don't like us." I don't believe there is anything the west could do to prevent Osama, Arafat, and other Islamists to "like" us, or even leave us alone in the long run. Listen to what they preach. It's not all just anti-American or anti-Israeli rhetoric, though that's all their apologists want to hear; makes things easier for them.

This "religion of peace" -- nearly implying that other religions aren't -- has its teachers saying that it's all right to rob, steal, kill, etc., from "non-believers." It rejects out of hand the entire notion of equal rights for women, as Maureen Dowd recently found out first hand.

I find it amazing that the very people who recoil in horror from Christian fundamentalists, who want them shut up and shut away, are perfectly happy listening to the rantings, mutterings, proclamations, and sheer hate speech of Islamic fundamentalists. And in my book, the Islamists make those Christian overachievers look positively liberal.

Quiz Time, Part 1

you have an ominosity quotient of seven. you are as ominous as the creators of this quiz. which terrifies us. find out your ominosity quotient.

Can it be said better?

I think not. Victor Davis Hanson chimes in on The End of an Era and almost makes one nostalgic for the 60's:

The mantras of the 1960s and 1970s were "coalition governments" and "free elections." The United States was supposed to predicate its support on representation of all spectra of views under democratic auspices, i.e., anything other that what had emerged for a time in Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam, Brazil, Greece, or Argentina. Such right-wing autocracies were corrupt, authoritarian, and murderous. In other words, like the present Palestinian Authority, they brooked no opposition, lynched or shot dissidents with or without show trials, and embezzled foreign aid. Yet today a democratic Israel — with a vociferous press, an antiwar movement, a plentitude of parties, regular elections, and a civilian-controlled military — is as demonized as Mr. Arafat is praised by Western intellectuals. Do we see protest signs that say "Support the democratic peoples of Israel in their struggle against sexist, homophobic, and fundamentalist reactionaries"?

The contradictions I read and hear every day from the left, Liberals, and Democrats (and I'm willing to separate the three out, rather than lump them into one amorphous pile of goo) get more and more hysterical. Find a web site or Blog that purports to be pro-Democratic and you read a stunning variety of whines, cries, sobs, and sheer bullshit the likes of which I've never witnessed. It's just possible that such things would have happened given the same resources during the Clinton Reign, but I doubt it.

As an example of the stimulating, intellectual debate and reaction from The Left, I give you Eschaton // Comments:

I, too, blame the American people. Sure, the Democrats are a putrid excuse for a political party, and yes, the media bias in favor of the right is hard to ignore. But in this case, it shouldn't have mattered. The last two years should have demonstrated to everyone with a pulse and a few functioning neurons how malevolent the Republican party is, how destructive their policies are, and just how much they cannot be trusted. This nation should have voted overwhelming Democratic for no other reason than to repudiate the Republican regime. Instead, millions upon millions of our fellow citizens -- and I call them that with shame -- enthusiastically decided to give these thugs total control. Fuck you, America. You deserve what you've got coming.

As pointed out by Andrea Harris.

The Day After

Such an election night. Felt more like a presidential race. I truly loved the notion that all the media outlets had to do their work the old-fashioned way. That is, analysis had to wait until they got actual vote counts, rather than exit polls. One hopes that last night will set an example for elections to come, but somehow I doubt it. Especially seeing those collapsed, sad, sorry faces on CNN, shocked (shocked, I say) at the notion that Republicans had succeeded so well.

No doubt that includes Jonathan Alter at msnbc.com, who wrote on October 30, 2002:

Even (or perhaps especially) with Republican mourners in attendance, the political message was clear: President Bush may be popular. He may have run out the clock with Iraq talk. The economy might not be cutting for Democrats as much as they hoped. But Democrats are going to bottle that Wellstone passion on Election Day. The strange thing is, it just might work for them -- and not just in Minnesota, where Walter Mondale will likely waltz into the Senate.

Well, oops for him.

And oops again, in this Tuesday blog entry:

Long story short: Just what everybody says. Republicans surge, but it doesn’t matter so much in the close races. Democrats retain the Senate by two, Republicans, the House. Dems clinch the governorships, and a bunch of conservative Southern Democrats go down, which may be a good thing, in terms of repealing that lunatic tax cut, since Daschle and company can stop worrying about those turncoats everytime someone in the party has a decent idea.

He also mentions with horror that Rush Limbaugh was going to be an analyst for NBC last night...

And congrats to the folks at CNBC for the balance, perspicacity and intellectual openness to invite the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal to be their regular political analysts. I guess the problem here is that Generalissimo Francisco Franco really is dead, and CNBC wanted the Next Best Thing.

Guess he missed ABC having Cokie Roberts and George Stephanopoulos as their only commentators, obviously their rendition of "fair and balanced."

And then there's this fair and balanced fellow:

It's like I said, I feel bad for my party, I feel bad for my friends, but if I'd been running one of these campaigns, if I'd invested a year of my life in running one of these campaigns, I'd be near suicidal right now. Instead, I'm just vaguely depressed.

"Vaguely depressed" my ass. He looked knocked out last night on TV. Poor fellow.

And more whining. Paul Begala, "Democratic analyst," says:

Take what happened in Georgia as an example. Max Cleland is an incumbent senator, I think he did do a good job in a tough state, and he ran a good campaign, and Saxby Chambliss, a Republican congressman, came in and beat him. Why? I think Max went along with Bush on the tax cut, he went along with Bush on the war with Iraq, and Bush came in here and beat his ass.

There should be a lesson there: If you vote with Bush and you're a Democrat, he's going to come into your state and beat your ass anyway.

They've been saying the same thing about Carnahan. Too bad for them. What, so Bush was supposed to come in and campaign for the Democrats? Are these people insane?

Well, yes, but that's another issue.

But the excuses just keep on coming, with Gebby whining:

"What you've got to look at is the incredible amount of special interest money that was on their side," said Mr. Gephardt, the House minority leader. "There were races where we were outspent 4 to 1, 5 to 1, the pharmaceutical companies probably spent $60 million across the country."

Lovely dodge word, "probably." Of course, Gray Davis spent more than that just fighting off the re-election challenge of an idiot. Isn't that called, "Buying the election"? Oh, sorry, that's only if it's a Republican....

It's all too funny. I would laugh except that I'm stuck with Grayout Davis as governor for another four years. I remain optimistic, however, that one day his "campaigning" will catch up with him and those happy young men and women with handcuffs will come a-knockin' at his office door. One can but hope....

Once more, pigs take flight

A report I never thought I'd see states:

"The people who carry out suicide bombings are not martyrs, they're war criminals, and so are the people who help plan such attacks," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. "The scale and systematic nature of these attacks sets them apart from other abuses committed in times of conflict. They clearly fall under the category of crimes against humanity."

Aren't you stunned? This is the group which has continuously slammed Israeli actions in response to these attacks. Naturally, this report was necessary to restore to HRW some level of credibility. Equally naturally....

A Hamas political leader disagreed.

"This report is neglecting all the Arab Muslim scholars who are not recognizing these operations as a suicide. [It] is accepting the [terminology of] Israel, describing such operation as suicide operation," said Mahmoud El Zahar. "This operation is not suicide, these are martyrs."

Of course it "neglects" those "scholars," because they're idiots. Oh, I know, that's not in keeping with the spirit of debate, insulting someone, but so what? They are idiots when they make such distinctions. "He didn't kill himself, he martyred himself! Those little children were, er, ah, incidental. Yes, yes. Too bad there weren't any military targets around. Wait, wait! All Zionist pigs are military targets! All of them, even their kitty cats!"

It gets better, though:

Principles of international law require that those in authority be held accountable when people under their control commit war crimes or crimes against humanity. Leaders who order such crimes, fail to take action to prevent them or fail to punish the perpetrators are also responsible for the crimes, the group said.

[...]

The report criticized the Palestinians for arguing that Israeli actions -- like destroying P.A. [Palestinian Authority] security installations -- has undermined its ability to act.

"Even when that capacity was largely intact," the report said, "the P.A. took no effective action to bring to justice those who incited, planned, or assisted in carrying out bombings and other attacks on Israeli civilians."

The P.A. instead, the report said, often let the perpetrators back onto the streets soon afterward.

So, from this it would naturally flow that Yasser ("I am General!") Arafat will soon be facing investigation for war crimes? Yippee!

It's a beautiful day....