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!)