Ed Banky: Kofi's Soldering Iron

More Creepy Confessional Stuff: Relationship Observations?

2007-01-12T07:04:00.000-07:00

Some of you know my history; most don't. To give the short version of the pertinent details:

I married at 23; I was a virgin, she was a virgin. We had what I now consider a cripplingly bad sex life. About six weeks ago, I was on a date with a really great girl and we found ourselves in a pretty intimate situation, but I psyched myself out and really screwed it up. I think I should have made a move, myself, and we would probably have gotten extremely physical. I am so damn awkward and shy around women.

Fast-forwarding to a few nights ago, I had a really cool young woman at my apartment. We were hitting it off well, shared a bottle of wine, and got into a similar situation to where I was six weeks ago. This time, I had learned from my experience, and we ended up sleeping together. It was wonderful, and I finally, finally had a sexual experience that included many of the facets I had always expected of "making love". We got together the next night and it was even better, I believe.

However, believe it or not, I am quite deeply depressed. I think there are extenuating circumstances, such as a pretty weighty handful of things that need dealing with right now. However, she refers to me as "honey" and "baby", and is clearly really into me. It's not that I know I don't feel similarly. It's more like, I am so overwhelmed, and it has only been 4 months from separating from my wife of 8 years, AND I have a lot of things on my plate, AND I just recently finalized my divorce (hip-hip . . .); I just don't know what to think.

There might not be much to comment on here, and this might be more like just some diary entry, but does anyone have any input? Has anyone ever felt this strange combination of emotions? Is any of this normal? If you have any advice or pertinent experience to share, please do.

Thanks so much. You are all wonderful

J

The Truth Is Ugly

2006-12-20T18:13:00.000-07:00

Iraqi Leaders Call For Moment Of Violence During Ramadan

2006-10-18T15:21:00.000-07:00

It takes a large pair of onions to be this funny:

BAGHDAD—A coalition of sectarian leaders from the approximately 185 separate political and insurgent groups vying for dominance in Iraq called for a nationwide moment of violence, to be held shortly before noon Friday in the remaining days of Ramadan.

Enlarge Image
Leaders from some of Iraq's many warring factions called for a unified moment of violence to mark the blessed month of Ramadan.

"All of us fighting for control of this land, whether Baathists, Sunni militants, al-Qaeda sympathizers, al-Sadrites, or just plain street criminals, have one thing in common," read a statement released Monday by the ad-hoc group. "We all share a deep abiding commitment to the indiscriminate use of murder, mayhem, and massacre as a means of achieving our various ends."

"Therefore," the statement continued, "this Ramadan, we shall take time to see past the things that separate us, and celebrate, together, a moment of horrifying brutality for the citizens of Iraq.

The ABCs Of Spinelessness: Path To 911

2006-09-08T12:30:00.000-07:00

I feel the need to offer a different take on ABC's caving to the pressure from the Democratic Party to change/cancel its scheduled "Path To 9/11" docudrama. The right side of the blogosphere is too intent on crying "censorship" in this case, pointing out the hypocrisy of Liberalism. It's true that the Democratic Party itself is trying to censor the show, to conform to its "version" of the story, which indeed smacks of utter hypocrisy. This is important, I admit.

However, conservative bloggers are overzealous in their complaints; as a staunch supporter of both free speech and a free market, I support the right of the people to use a strong collective voice to prevent something they oppose from seeing the light of day. When Michael Moore's appearance at Utah Valley State College was prevented through a community effort--major benefactors threatened to withdraw donations, individuals mounted protests and written campaigns--local and national Liberals shouted "censorship" and "fascism" and "totalitarianism" from the mountaintops. It was stupid back then, and it's stupid now.

On the other hand, if it proves to be true that representatives of the US Government are threatening broadcast rights repercussions, that's another animal entirely. Then, it's a major, serious problem. As I understand it, the Bill of Rights should protect the people from government tyranny. When government begins to take on the role of information gatekeeper, the fundamental rights supposedly reserved to us are being forfeited. I recommend that we keep our eye on the real issue: government involvement.

Sure, ABC is proving itself to be a big ol' pussy by backing down. Sure, it's another step in the direction of sweeps weeks full of potato salad how-to shows, but it certainly doesn't mean the Nazis are at our front door. Why not voice our displeasure to by alerting advertisers, avoiding Disneyland and skipping Miramax flicks? I say leave the mire-wallowing whining to the mire-wallowing whiners.

The ACLU Is Out Of Touch With The 'A' Part

2006-08-30T07:57:00.000-07:00

Yahoo! tells us that according to this poll, by an almost 2-to-1 margin, Americans are in favor of profiling based on physical appearance. It gives me some faith in our people.

Last night I was telling a buddy how excited I am about having been profiled on my trip to/from France back in March. I was stopped at nearly every checkpoint, and given everything from a casual Q&A to a thorough personal search. And of course my baggage was usually opened and checked for bombs and crap. Oh, I am a dark, dark haired guy with a prominent, Jewish-born nose, and I was sporting a big scruffy black beard. I could easily pass for an Arab.

As someone profiled based on appearance (the only criterion security personnel can possibly use for this activity), I can unequivocally attest to a complete absence of offense or disturbance. Keep in mind that my not being an Arab/Muslim has no bearing on why I was profiled. The idea is to conduct profiling based on appearance--not DNA or philosophy or even religious beliefs. My being profiled was just as potentially offensive as someone else being profiled who happened to be Muslim.

What makes my being profiled even more impressive is that it occured in the Dhimmiland of France, and that I looked a lot more like one of the 9/11 terrorists than some Muslim in his full religious get up. So they were being so cautious as to stop me as a guy whose face said "Arab" but whose demeanor and attire said "Westerner."

Three cheers.

Toys For (Dead) Tots In Lebanon; Un-refuted

2006-08-25T13:10:00.000-07:00

Folks "refuted" the staging claims against this Lebanese Toy Monger by calling it a salvage operation. It made sense, but the facts don't jibe. Check it. The claim is that the shot with this suitcase represents him placing the doll inside--I believe it does. However, this is not part of a salvaging effort. Here's why:

In the shot that shows him carrying the three toys simultaneously, he's got Pink Dress Doll, Tinky Winky, and Minnie Mouse, right? The problem is that he is shown coming from the suitcase, not moving toward it. The shadows in both shots reveal that he was facing the same direction both times. Perhaps the photographer had asked him to turn around as he moved toward the suitcase? Possibly. But if he's on his way to the suitcase to salvage the toys, where have Tinky and Minnie disappeared to for the shot with the suitcase?

In this shot, there are three-ish possibilities:

He is placing the doll into the suitcase
a) as part of a salvage effort (or)
b) after having staged a shot with the doll
OR
c) He is removing the doll to be placed for a staged shot

However, one of these is not really possible: A

If the three-toy picture represents the man taking the toys to the suitcase, two of the three somehow magically disappear by the time he is seen returning the doll. Neither of them are in --or even near--the suitcase. The suitcase shot shows a good 150-200 square feet, none of which shows any sign of the other two toys.

What really happened, I believe, is that Sharif Karim colluded with the guy in the shots. First they arrived on the scene. Next, they began to unload the toys. The "salvager" posed for a shot with three toys, Karim intending to use it as evidence in the event that enough people screamed "Staged!" about the toy-in-the-foreground shots. He had the "salvage" story as a backup. After snapping the staged shots, they gathered and returned the toys to the suitcase, not having thought it out very well. As the toys were each recovered, Karim continued shooting. After the shoot, he chose the Pink Dolly returning to the suitcase shot for its sympathy value, neglecting that the other two purportedly salvaged toys were still waiting to be removed from their spots on set.

I might've sucked hard at explaining it, but I hope you get the idea. If he was indeed salvaging, all three of the toys would be in both the suitcase and carrying shots. Such is not the case; therefore, he wasn't "salvaging" as reported, and probably was indeed staging shots.

Oh, and here's what a real post-bombardment toy looks like:

More Hizzy Fits: Once Again The MSM Ran With It

2006-08-24T14:56:00.000-07:00

More collusion between Hizzies and the mainstream press has been uncovered and expertly documented, at ZombieTime. In this case, a missile that purportedly nailed a Red Cross van smack dab at the cross' center not only failed to cause much damage, but apparently imparted months-old rust upon the vehicle's roof. On top of this, the missile apparently unscrewed and removed the centrally located roof siren/vent before it entered, and failed to destroy the van. Finally, the missile apparently imploded after entering the vehicle, pulling the roof inward, and sucking the windshield onto the dashboard.

Yep, that's what happened. Right MSM?

Editor & Publisher: Apologist Straws

2006-08-23T14:11:00.000-07:00

"America's Oldest Journal Covering the Newspaper Industry," Editor & Publisher, offers another attempt by the media to discredit/deny the claims of online writers, whose work has exposed the manipulation of written and photographic news by media personnel across Lebanon. To summarize the problems with this editorial, it's essentially built upon one big, fat strawman, presenting--either out of ignorance or with credulity--flimsy accounts of bloggers' claims, supported by beams of worthless anecdotes, and some of its own unsupported proclamations.

In Defense of War Photographers
While some criticism is warranted, the current controversy over manipulated or staged pictures from Lebanon has been fueled by speculative, unfounded, or politically-driven charges that have tainted all of the brave photographers who cover conflict in the Middle East.

By Greg Mitchell

(August 22, 2006) -- With most others in the mainstream silent, I rise here in support of the overwhelming number of press photographers in the Middle East who bravely, under horrid conditions, in recent weeks have sent back graphic and revealing pictures from the war zones, only to be smeared, as a group, by rightwing bloggers aiming, as always, to discredit the media as a whole.

This amounts to a clever ad populum/appeal to authority hybrid argument, with which the author, despite not being a member of the canonical mainstream press--that which is being "smeared"--attempts to link himself to the "accepted" news gatekeepers, while (as will be addressed below) hoping to portray "rightwing" bloggers as conspiracy nuts.

This broad condemnation, and the conspiracy theories, lodged against photographers in war zones -- who are risking their lives while bloggers risk nothing but carpal tunnel syndrome -- needs to be refuted.

First, he equivocates with his use of the term "conspiracy theory," which has a life of its own, aside from its mere denotation. The author's use of the term is accurate insofar as it describes bloggers' claims of a conspiracy to misrepresent by members of the media, but takes a sinister swipe to infer its other "the CIA killed JFK" meaning--the meaning people tend to associate with wacko Ruby Ridge/Waco types. His use of the term takes on more of an ad hominem shape as the author further elaborates (see below).

Second, he throws in a red herring in the form of a fallacious appeal to emotion, by attempting to introduce the risk of life as relevant to bloggers' claims. Pointing out that standing so close to Hezbollah fighters is dangerous might have merit in a discussion, but is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Indeed, one American photographer in Lebanon, Bryan Denton, often cited by the blogs as backing their claims, has now apologized for his earlier "irresponsible" assertions at the Lightstalkers site, and stated flatly, "Any one out there who is trying to politicize that is just plain sick, and is moving this further away from the real issue at hand. There are hundreds of photographers working here now. Don't let a few bad apples take the attention away from what the REAL story is, because by the looks of the blogs, THAT is exactly what is happening." Don't expect to find those second thoughts on any of the blogs.

Introducing this tidbit is a particularly interesting choice by the author. For those unfamiliar with it, Denton posted a forthright denunciation of many photographers' propensities toward misrepresentation, staging and so forth--in short, the things being claimed by bloggers. He stuck his neck out by posting this "insider" comment at a photographers' online community.

Following almost unanimous condemnation on the forums, he issued an apology. He did not disclaim what he had previously stated; he only apologized--arguably in the interest of maintaining some credibility among his peers. This looks a lot more like "communal reinforcement" than a man arbitrarily deciding to retract statements. And once again, the author uses a red herring--this time, it's a guy apologizing--to attempt to deflect whatever statements were presented as true. An apology has no bearing on a statement's veracity.

Which is not to say that this is much ado about nothing. Obviously, Adnan Hajj, the Reuters photographer who doctored at least two images, deserved to be dismissed.

What criteria brought the author to this conclusion? What made this particular action so "obviously" deserving? Was it the evidence unearthed by the bloggers who were doing editorial work for the overburdened Reuters team? Based on the tone of this article, the author harbors little faith in the ability of bloggers to find malfeasance and identify it.

Could his confidence be, more probably, a result of Reuters' eventual admission to the fraud? Juxtaposing "obviously [Hajj] deserved to be dismissed" with further standards of evidence he presents (see below), it becomes clearer that the author prefers to allow Reuters and other MSM members to decide what is accurate, instead of relying upon the merits of the evidence.

A handful of other pictures snapped by others warrant investigation.

Big ol' chubby strawman. Here he fully misrepresents the case. A "handful", if taken literally, is five. Figuratively, it might be a half-dozen, or even ten. However, the shots being disputed are well into the scores in number, emanating from dozens of discrete photographic locations. The author either intentionally misleads, or is comfortable making broad assertions without having investigated the myriad questionable photographs and captions.

In a few cases, caption information was wrong or misleading, and required correction. In addition, the controversy has sparked an overdue discussion -- some of it here at E&P -- on the credibility of all photography in the Photoshop age and the wide use of local stringers abroad in a time of cutbacks in supervision.

But, in general, the charges against the photographers, and their news organizations, have been hysterical, largely unfounded, and politically driven, while at times raising valid questions, such as what represents "staging."

"Hysterical," "largely unfounded" and "politically driven"? These are staggeringly sweeping claims that I must assume will be addressed completely in part two of this opinion by the author. I suspect that the third of these accusations might prove true, if the author's definition of "politically driven" follows the lines of "intent on exposing examples of politically motivated misrepresentations and fabrications by the media."

Time does not permit a point by point documentation of the dozens of ludicrous, or at least completely unproven, examples of doctored or staged or otherwise manipulated photos on the Web.

Despite my earlier reservations, I won't remove the gravedigging spade from the author's hand; he can have his self-appointed "mainstream" designation--grudge-free. To me, this "time does not permit" statement openly illustrates what I see as a symptom of the MSM's terrible illness. The media have an apparent belief that it's better to be wrong and/or inaccurate and/or misrepresentative and FAST than to be correct and accurate and forthright and not so fast.

As has been illustrated in Reuters' own excuses for distributing the clearly doctored smoke-cloud shots by Hajj, even the most "prestigious" news purveyors appear to subscribe to this perspective. Senior Reuters editor Paul Holmes, in-charge of the company's standards and ethics, said this of the faked shots: "It was handled by someone on a very busy day at a more junior level than we would wish for in ideal circumstances". In other words, if it's a busy day, accuracy is less important for Reuters than timeliness. Paramount, according to the news agency itself, is the need to rush the news--accurate or not.

Have no fear, I will soon return to this subject, but in the meantime, feel free to plunge into the blogosphere. If you go deeply enough, you may feel you are back on the Grassy Knoll.

Here's where, with his "Grassy Knoll", he uses the earlier equivocation fallacy to launch an ad hominem attack, attempting to compare astute bloggers to wacko nut-jobs. He continues by referencing (to my shock, I admit) the site of the most thorough documentation of photo staging at Qana, as if to infer that EU Referendum is an example of this "Grassy Knoll".

One of the most-linked sites in this controversy, EU Referendum, goes so far as to suggest that a kind of Hollywood "film-set" was improvised at the site of the Qana killings "for the benefit of both Hezbollah and the media." Many of the blogs routinely refer to The New York Times, AP, CNN and other news organizations as being in league with Hezbollah or at least "anti-American."

Just this morning, a blogger emailed me his latest "scoop." Remember those photos a few days ago showing "Made in USA" signs posted here and there amid the rubble of South Beirut? This fellow is convinced that an AP photog wrote the signs, in a certain font, on his computer -- and pasted them into his image.

One problem with the theory: E&P happens to have photos taken by others that show exactly the same thing Â but the blogger will no doubt now claim that all of these highly competitive photogs conspired on this.

Enter the first of several anecdotal tales of the author's encounters with what he presumably sees as evidence relevant to his article. In this case, he refers to an email from an unnamed source, in which the sender posits his own photo manipulation theory. The author then refutes the theory. This is worse than a mere strawman. At least with a bona-fide strawman, one can actually verify that the straws being used to build the man have come from somewhere other than the author's mind. Not only does he invoke and refute an unverifiable theory, but bases it all on an anecdote.

To boot, he apparently expects his readers to accept it as evidence of his thesis that bloggers' claims are "speculative, unfounded, or politically-driven". As it is being used, it represents a faulty generalization. The author appears to be attempting to link an email from some unknown dude with the subjects being criticized of his article. The cherry on this sundae is yet another fallacious promclamation: "the blogger will no doubt now claim that all of these highly competitive photogs conspired on this." Why attempt to argue with the author when he appears to be able to do it all on his own?

Often, the allegations of bogus photos amounts to nothing more than this: Showing, say, one picture of a badly-damaged car in Lebanon next to another shot of a totally destroyed auto, both said to be hit by Israeli bombs. Aha! Obviously the one that was only badly-damaged must have gotten wrecked in some other way. The possibility that one vehicle suffered a direct hit and the other a glancing blow -- or that different Israeli missiles were used -- apparently does not occur to these people.

Again, he uses a strawman to commit another anecdotal fallacy, by supplying an unverifiable example, and refuting it. Bravo.

One day last week I spent an entertaining ten minutes examining a long thread at one blog in which most of the posters were convinced that, for some unfathomable reason, a very dark-skinned Lebanese man in one photo MUST have been pasted into the scene -- for everyone knows (?) Arabs are never that dark.

And once more, we've got a monstrous strawman. In this case, it is terribly difficult to accept that the author is truly sincere about his analysis. Despite the fact that it's yet another example of a useless anecdote, I will attempt to address the situation to which he appears to be referring. In the photo, there's a black guy in a crowd of Arabs, whose head has been apparently cut and pasted over a Muslim woman's.

In my opinion, it's completely obvious that it's a fake. The point, though, is that the author tries to get his reader to believe that bloggers were calling "fake" because the guy was too dark-skinned. I never even encountered such a claim in my own reading; however, assuming the author indeed found such claims on his own, he must've had to dig pretty deep, with blinders strapped firmly to his temples, to avoid the much simpler and more powerful argument that it's a guy's HUGE head on a scarf-wearing woman's body.

Keep in mind, in considering all of these charges, that almost without exception, the bloggers are basing their comments on photos posted on the Web in compressed jpeg form, with little true detail possible. So when they write, for example, about people or props being "planted" at the site of an explosion -- the only evidence for this being the apparent lack of dust on their surface -- remember that sharp detail and true surface texture is not visible in Web photos.

Here is what I see as an attempt to argue from ignorance. He appears to claim "We can't know for sure that there are details only visible on the original images, therefore, no analysis can be accurate." Sorry, but this is simply disingenuous. While many details are unavailable in the small and compressed JPEGs available, these details aren't what are being singled out by critics. By this logic, no web photograph could ever be said to represent what it purports to represent, since we don't have access to the original image, in its RAW format.

He's willfully misrepresenting the situation here, since the instances to which he seems to refer involve monochromatic dust scenes, the only exception to the grey-brown being single conspicuously colorful toys, in several shots--most by the same photographer. Here's one example:

What's conveniently ignored by the author are the following shots of a guy either packing or unpacking his booty, then carrying the toys to or from the scene. Note that he is carrying the same Minnie Mouse toy as in the above shot.

Sometimes it goes beyond mere quacking and acting like one; if it is a duck, it is a duck.

Here's just one typical example of blog hysteria in their attacks on what some of them call "fauxtography."

An image captured by one of The New York Times' most acclaimed photographers, Tyler Hicks, that appeared in the paper and in a gallery at its Web site, showed a young man being pulled from the wreckage of a collapsed building after the Israeli attack on Qana that killed at least 28, including 16 or more children. Eagled-eyed bloggers soon found, on other news sites, images of the same man darting about the same disaster scene, trying to rescue people.

So, in their usual manner, they put 1 and 1 together and got 2 much: One blog after another charged that this man, after doing his rescue work, was planted on the pile, as a bomb victim, by Hezbollah, probably with the cooperation of Tyler Hicks, who then sent the manipulated photo around the world. The Times, as usual, was denounced by the rightwing bloggers for pro-terrorist and/or anti-American bias.

Even the popular, non-political site Gawker joined in, under the headline, "Times War Photos Artfully Staged, Directed."

Well, there was, indeed, something wrong with the Times presentation. On the Web, though not in print, it suggested that the man had been blasted in the Israeli attack. In fact, the Times quickly found out -- and corrected its Web caption -- that the man fell down and got hurt in his rescue efforts.

Let me offer my congratulations to the author for adding a point-of-reference here that can be actually used to objectively evaluate his claims.

However, first of all, the judgement of the relative speed with which the Times corrected its caption is entirely subjective. Second, the point to be found here is that the Times offered a false story with no apparent explanation for it. Then they somehow gained instant access to the true story--that which had inexplicably eluded them previously. Where did this interpretation of the image come from? Why didn't the original caption come from the same place? Also, what is it about this new source of "accurate" caption info that makes it more reliable than the original source of information?

Bloggers like me are saying that an institutional bias makes attending to such details--such as those irrepressible misers known as truth and accuracy--less important when the news presented supports the MSM perspective. We claim that a fallacious bout of wishful thinking encourages MSM members to falsely attribute news items, permit staging of photos, and so on. Herein lies the problem--conspiracy or not.

This simple explanation for the chronology was too much for some of the bloggers who continued questioning the incident, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Bloggers continued questioning the incident? Once the Times owned up to the "error" as discovered by its proxy editors in the blogosphere, new questions arose, such as those mentioned earlier. These questions persist.

As far as "all the evidence to the contrary", the author again shows his devoted faith in the MSM to provide the last word in matters of controversy. The Times has presented another version of the events depicted in the photos; now this version is the truth.

In the estimation of our author, the Times has a new story, and he's sticking to it.

Never mind that the shot still appears quite staged, and is inconsistent with the caption's newest claim. Why would an injured individual remove his cap and tuck it neatly to his side. And, being injured to the point that he cannot even lift his head (his eyes are closed, and his face dons a grimace), why in Allah's name is his buddy yanking the poor kid by the arm like that?

Others in the mainstream keep citing it too. As recently as this past Sunday, a Boston Herald editorial still had the man in the Hicks photo posing for the camera, then getting up and running around. It said the Times had "issued a correction" -- without mentioning that it related to the caption about how he got hurt, not about it being a bogus photo.

Aside from the Herald, who are these "others in the mainstream"? When pigs either fly, or are eaten by the guys in this photo, only then will I believe that the MSM is on the case.

But all of this was inevitable. Many bloggers appear ignorant of time-stamping and the fact that photos are often posted on Web sites out of sequence.

Talk about beating a dead straw-horse. Sheesh.

Another revealing example (there are dozens) concerns the statements of a young U.S. photographer in Beirut named Bryan Denton. On Aug. 11, he posted a comment on a discussion board at the important online meeting place for photojournalists, Lightstalkers.

Dozens? Easy there, fella. Why don't we start with maybe a "handful", and proceed from there?

The photographers, by then, were already discussing charges of dead Lebanese children being displayed for the cameras in a stagey way. Timothy Fadek, whose photos have appeared in Time, Newsweek, The New York Times Magazine and dozens of other top publications, had posted on Aug. 8 that when he covered the Qana air strike he twice saw a rescuer raising "a dead child to a photographer, and in anger and distress, shouted something in Arabic which I didn't understand. But his message was clear, that he was very angry and vented his anger to the media (the world)."

Another photog, Stuart Isett, asked, referring to rescuers displaying the body of one child over and over: "How are the pictures misleading? The child is dead and the subject was showing this to the cameras -- that's how any intelligent reader would view these images. The man in the image has every right to show this dead child to the world -- this happens all the time in terrible situations.

"What this is all about, is an attempt by right wing blogs to muddy the waters and somehow claim, like Michele Malkin and Rush Limbaugh have, that Qana and other civilians [sic] deaths in Lebanon are staged."

When did they claim this? This is another perfect example of the MSM mentality. Despite being unable to verify the veracity of this statement, the author quotes some (abitrary) guy as support for the story. Never mind that what he is claiming is probably false. "He said it, and it fits my worldview, so . . . ."

He goes straight from an appeal to authority ("Time, Newsweek, The New York Times Magazine and dozens of other top publications") to quoting some random guy. The irony is how his appeal to authority rings circular. By citing examples of what most would agree to be part of the MSM, he is begging the question. "Bloggers claim the MSM is corrupt. Well, a member of the MSM has this to say about the issue."

So part of his evidence against the claimed MSM bias is that a member of the MSM says the MSM is not biased. Ah-ha. While he's at it, the author might want to interview Kofi Annan for his take on corruption within the ranks of the UN.

Then, on August 11, Denton posted a comment on Lightstalkers that got the rightwing blogosphere in a dither. When he later denounced them for politicizing it, however, they were silent.

Wrong. "They" rightly assume that he cowered to the pressure, as would be expected. As was previously mentioned, nothing in his apology did anything to change what he previously professed to be true. He does appear to be understandably upset that his "stand" on photo staging was adopted by bloggers skeptical of the MSM, whose political leanings tend toward the right.

Much more on this in Part II of this column, tomorrow.

I'm holding my breath, while breathing.

Yeah, Appeasement Totally Works

2006-08-23T09:31:00.000-07:00

Germans are at a loss for how, despite their bending over for the UN, and openly denouncing US "aggression," they were still targeted by Islamic terrorists. Crazy.

I suppose we need to delve yet deeper into understanding why they want to destroy our civilization. Apparently, we still haven't dedicated the time and tolerance necessary to fully comprehend what makes these practitioners of the religion of peace tick (pun intended, and actually quite clever).

Toys For (Dead) Tots In Lebanon

2006-08-18T10:45:00.000-07:00

Here's some more dope. This time we've got the prop guy unpacking his wares for the camera, prior to setting up the scene.

More On The 'Ali'ver Stone Front

2006-08-17T10:50:00.000-07:00

Here we go again, maybe. If you checked out the link in the previous post, you read the chronicle of a propagandist necrophile who staged, shot and reshot still and moving pictures of dead children in Lebanon. He used them like props, including actually handling the lifeless bodies like ragdolls. The shrill-voiced guy, who has at least three completely different full names--according to various wire service stories--audaciously pinned a conspicuously clean blue pacifier to the shirt of a toddler prior to photographing him.

The more serious charge--and one that isn't without merit--is that individuals in the region might have actually set up the situation that caused these deaths, intentionally. This all for propaganda. According to reports, the local Hizzies mounted a missile launcher on the roof of the now-obliterated building, deliberately stocking its rooms with disabled children. The claim is that Hizzies were hoping to invite an Israeli bombarment.

This will obviously either blow up, or fizzle out. If the former occurs, it will be dismissed as an isolated incident by an insane insurgent, following protracted denial sessions in the main stream media and on liberal blogs worldwide. According to precedent, it will be denied, then criticized as unverified, then accepted and labeled as "cherry-picking" or insignificant to the "big picture" or even acceptable/important due to "the sincerety of its message," and the dhimmitude will ultimately retake the reigns.

Update: While not referring to the whole set-up of the actual deaths scenario, an article has surfaced, according to expectation, denying the obvious (see step#1 above). To boot, the writer employs an ugly false dilemma/strawman, basing the "debunking" of EU Referendum's claims on a time-stamp red herring. He also adds a dash of association fallacy, by immediately linking the site's info to comments by Rush Limbaugh.

I honestly never even noticed references to photographic time stamps as evidence offered by EURef. The guy either a) Didn't actually read the blog's applicable content (inexcusable when trying to rebut it) or b) willfully ignored the mountains of detailed evidence of the obvious orchestration of the photos.

Also, lemme mention an early apologist opinion that attempts to cite cultural misunderstanding (we need an "appreciation of cultural differences") in a denial that the photos were staged. I'm interested to read the writers' future comments as this story unravels.

Update 2:
OK. So here's one denial of the more serious accusation that everything was staged. This accusation ranges from the Hizzies actually killed the people, put them into a position to be killed, or transported them to the scene to be photographed. And so it begins.

Update 3:
Here's a fun tidbit. It's an anecdote describing (with video proof) a 2002 faked funeral procession near Jenin, the site of a purported Israeli massacre. At one point, after being dropped from his makeshift "casket," the "deceased" scurries to climb back on--causing a mass dispersal of frightened onlookers.

The article itself covers the purported disinterment of corpses from cemeteries for relocation in mass graves, and the inclusion of rotting animal carcasses to add to the perception of a horrific death scene. These people are apparently quite fond of desecrating corpses toward advancing their agenda. And judging by the stunned disposition of the crowd upon witnessing this apparent resurrection, few locals are necessarily "in the loop" when these propaganda plays are produced; credulous witnesses can therefore be both sincere, honest and wrong. This adds yet another dimension to the above story.

Aspiring Director Emerges In Qana (EU Referendum)

2006-08-16T15:03:00.000-07:00

You need to follow this link and keep up with this ongoing story. It abuts well another story of a Reuters photographer who doctored his photos to help perputuate propaganda.

This is incredible. I read of this a few days ago, was repulsed and shocked, but let it simmer. This EU Referendum blog has taken it upon itself to chronicle this maddening set of events. More comment to come.

EU Referendum

Why not read some of the site's other content? S'good. Basically eyes the EU from a British perspective. It, like the UN, is an example of the deferring of sovereignty that repulses so many Americans and probably quite a few Brits and Aussie's and maybe even some Japanese.

Opine: The Plague of Dehumanization

2006-08-07T11:30:00.000-07:00

What better way to inaugurate my new blog than with a missive on abortion, the systematic, state encouraged—and sponsored—mutilation and killing of defenseless babies? For me, abortion is the issue. It is the most pressing policy-related concern that there is in this country, and possibly the world. The reason: it represents an unprecedented widespread sanction of mass murder.

Despite the fact that arguing against the right to kill babies is easiest from a spiritual standpoint, I'll steer clear of that mode or argument; I'm looking at it logically and as scientifically as possible.

The following is replete with what could be considered strawpersons, red herrings, arguments from ignorance and the like. Amusingly enough, it nevertheless contains a more honest and direct set of arguments and observations than I have encountered elsewhere online. I see it as at the lesser of the evils, if nothing better; where a typical pro-choice argument might build a flimsy “unhinged bible thumper" or “patriarchy/male domination/machismo” strawman to attack, I sincerely invoke examples of the best arguments I know; where a typical pro-choice argument might invoke red herrings such as incest*, mine (see “Conundra, loopholes and hypocrisy” section below) expose inconsistencies of logic; whereas I recognize that placing the burden of proof that an embryo is not a human being in the hands of the pro-choicers is something of an argument from ignorance, the typical pro-choice argument commits the significantly grosser error of attempting to obfuscate the fact that they cannot objectively illustrate the reverse claim. It's an argument from ignorance with much more dangerous consequecnes—plus its proponents deny it altogether.

The Semantic Framework
For the discussion of this issue, a few reasonable premises must be accepted: First, we must agree that murder of the innocent is wrong (immoral, unacceptable, whatever you prefer); we also must agree that humans are innately more valuable than other animals. The former is almost universally acceptable, while the latter sees very little, albeit some, disagreement. However, I believe that most humans are in practical agreement about human superiority, whether or not they choose to admit it. In other words, they either eat animals, wear animals, own animals, eat food harvested by machinery modeled after the toils of animals, and/or use products/pharmaceuticals tested—or based upon tests performed—on animals (the list could easily continue—that's another essay entirely). And yes, there are those who take issue with—or see no moral element to—murder. I think this societal element is so insignificant as to be inconsequential. If you cannot accept both of these premises, further reading would be pointless.

Also note that throughout this essay, unless otherwise indicated by the context, when I use terms like embryo, fetus and zygote, I am referring to the human form of this being. In other words, do yourself a favor by refraining from the nitpick-as-red-herring method of reading this. If you honestly know what I mean to say, don't discount my writing based on technicalities; you know what I mean—ignore it and proceed.

You'll notice that I often refer to the embryo as he/she instead of it. I realize that it makes my argument appear circular, since I am attempting to illustrate that what one might consider an “it” is really a he/she, simultaneously using the personal pronoun as though it were already properly established. Again, please consider this semantic in nature. Because I happen to know the validity of such pronoun use before writing this essay, I am virtually forced into it on principle. If it bothers you enough, just pretend “he” or “she” really means “it”. To boot, consider that scientifically, the sex of the zygote is established by the chromosomal disposition of the sperm cell, immediately prior to his or her formation. So it's objectively a he or she at that point—even if you doubt his or her humanity.

What Is Abortion?
From here, we must proceed with defining abortion. For my purposes, I am referring to the intentionally induced destruction of the unborn human, at any stage of development. This spans from the moment of fertilization to the post-partum child. I understand that the word abortion has no innate connotation of unnatural or intentional inducement, but the all-too-common spontaneous abortion due to internal complications is in another category entirely. Whereas the “natural” abortion is analogous to dying of natural causes, the externally-induced abortion is analogous to willful murder.

The simple syllogistic construction behind my opposition to abortion and so-called “choice” looks like this:

1. Murdering an innocent human being is wrong
2. An unborn child is an innocent human being
3. Abortion murders an innocent human being

(Therefore)

4. Abortion is wrong

It's quite simple as you can see.

For your standard, morally-centered human, abortion can only be justified through the process of dehumanizing the unborn human. This process disputes items 2 and 3 above, attempting to claim that unborn children are something other than human beings.

However, as you will read, this attempt at dehumanization relies exclusively upon arbitrary—and in my opinion, disingenuous—presumptions about unborn children. Abortion is justified in a manner similar to virtually any appearance-based devaluation of humanity in history, from ethnic-based mass-murder and slavery to the mistreatment of women.

In short, it's all about dehumanization.

“It's not a person; it's just a blob of cells.”
Contrary to much of the published propaganda, terms like embryo and fetus denote designations, not to distinguish between lifeforms, but to categorize developmental stages of the same lifeform. Any doubt as to the veracity of this notion can be eliminated by asking an obstetrician to define “fetus”. He will necessarily be bound by reference to developmental age, not some fundamental change into another being. Any definition of a fetus will contain the constraint of “8-weeks of development,” meaning an embryo stops being referred to as such at that stage of development.

Ronan O'Rahilly, world-renowned Nomina Embryologica board (the international body that determines correct terminology for human embryology texts) member and co-creator of the well-known Carnegie Stages, a reference widely accepted by the medical profession as an essential tool for the basic understanding of embryonic development, has this to say in his classic text (co-authored by Fabiola Müller), Human Embryology & Teratology:

"Prenatal life is conveniently divided into two phases: the embryonic and the fetal. The embryonic period proper during which the vast majority of the named structures of the body appear, occupies the first 8 postovulatory weeks . . . the fetal period extends from 8 weeks to birth. (p. 87)”

Also contrary to published propaganda, the embryo is considered by embryologists (the scientists whose job it is to know embryos) to be the life form initiated immediately following fertilization. Despite attempts in the past few decades to manufacture the term, there is no such thing as a “pre-embryo”. However, despite the lack of acceptance by embryologists of this fabricated term, you'll still find it plastered both in pro-abortion and purportedly unbiased information centers. And I'm not crying conspiracy; you should never find “pre-embryo” in the literature of any legitimate primary source for embryological information. No embryologist would use this term outside of a clear policy-based agenda.

The “Pre-Embryo” factor
I invoke this appellation for good reason. It exemplifies the pro-abortionist attempts to unscientifically obfuscate what would otherwise be clear definitions of humanness. In the case of the “pre-embryo,” it was manufactured in a deliberate attempt to dehumanize the embryo prior to implantation. For instance, the RU-486 drug often works by preventing the implantation of “pre-implantation embryo” (note: this is the term used to represent the embryo during the first several days before implanting at the uterus; you'll find it in embryology texts and scholarly papers, where pro-abortionists would use “pre-embryo”), which is ultimately expelled (and hence killed) in a manner similar to what occurs at menstruation. The term has obvious value here, as it helps justify this form of abortion; since she's not quite an embryo yet, they claim, she can't possibly be human.

Again in Human Embryology & Teratology, O'Rahilly belittles this deceptive invention:

"The ill-defined and inaccurate term 'pre-embryo',” he writes, “. . . is not used in this book, (p. 55)” providing the following explanation:

"(1) [The term “pre-embryo”] is ill-defined because it is said to end with the appearance of the primitive streak or to include neurulation; (2) it is inaccurate because purely embryonic cells can already be distinguished after a few days, as can also the embryonic disc; (3) it is unjustified because the accepted meaning of the word embryo includes all of the first 8 weeks; (4) it is equivocal because it may convey the erroneous idea that a new human organism is formed at only some considerable time after fertilization; and (5) it was introduced in 1986 'largely for public policy reasons'. (p. 88)”

The most significant is point 4, which touches on exactly why the term has been invented. It hopes to use equivocation to create the impression that something other than an embryo exists at some point following fertilization, but prior to implantation. Yet there is no pre-embryo; and users of this fabricated term attempt to use it to describe an embryo as far along as a week into development.

Even biologist and embryonic stem cell research supporter Lee M. Silver affirms in his Remaking Eden that the term “pre-embryo” has been "embraced wholeheartedly for reasons that are political, not scientific," calling the term “useful in the political arena where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo experimentation."

The fact is that every embryo is a genetically unique individual, with an already determined sex, and, like an infant or toddler or adolescent or adult or geriatric, is a human at the precise level of development expected according to human biology.

Even at his or her single-celled state, the embryo is already producing human enzymes and human proteins. “The zygote,” O'Rahilly writes, “is a unicellular embryo and is a highly specialized cell. The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity. (p. 33)

This statement affirms that at even his or her single-cell stage, an embryo is an embryo, and nothing less.

“[J]ust as postnatal age begins at birth,” O'Rahilly writes, “prenatal age begins at fertilization. (p. 88)”

Human . . .
We have established that the lifeform that is created immediately following fertilization is objectively—scientifically—regarded as an embryo—nothing more or less. By deduction, it is absolutely undeniable that this embryo is a human embryo; this life-form is, as a matter of fact, human. Here, pro-choicers might wish to distinguish between the noun and adjective use of “human,” which is perfectly reasonable. After all, something can be human, in nature, without being A human being. Take, for example, hairs, fingernails, urine and skin cells.

The American Heritage Dictionary's most applicable definition of the adjective form of “human” is “Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans.” This definition would satisfy uses such as “I found a human finger” or “I heard human cries.” In both such instances, we aren't professing that the nouns being described (finger, cries) are actual human beings. They are merely human in nature. They are not alive in any biological sense.

Pro-choicers might choose to admit that embryos are human—in the descriptive sense—but not necessarily humans themselves. However, that embryos are human is easily established by examining their genetic makeup. No one and nothing biologically human (persons, organs, tissues) will have anything other than human DNA, nor will any being other than a human (dogs, spiders, trees) have anything but non-human DNA. In this sense, it is irrefutable that an embryo is human in nature.

From here, one could infer that being human in nature—at the most basic level—satisfies the requirements for the designation “human being.” “If his or her DNA is human, he or she is a human being,” right? The debate could end here, except that there are other biological components that would meet the “human DNA” criterion without necessarily being discrete human beings (see examples above). However, unlike embryos, none of these other examples are distinct, separate organisms. Every embryo has his or her own distinct set of chromosomes and a unique genetic fingerprint. Again, by objective definition, every embryo is a distinct and separate organism or (as American Heritage defines the word) “an individual form of life.”

. . . Being
In defining being, the American Heritage Dictionary refers to “The state or quality of having existence.” Something that exists, something that is, is a being. As it applies to humanity, it further defines a “being” as “a person” and “a member of the human race.” So, is an embryo? Does he or she exhibit “the state or quality of having existence”? Clearly he or she does.

So now what can we state unequivocally? Well, an embryo is:

1. Human (in nature)
2. A distinct organism
3. A being

An embryo is a human, a distinct organism and a being. He or she is obviously, therefore, a human being. At this point, any reference to a soul, a spark of life, the ability to feel pain, consciousness, a developed nervous system or a beating heart is irrelevant. None of these things amount to criteria for an objective designation of human being. Sure, there are subjective arguments that can be made, with wholly arbitrary rationales; still, they all miss the point in an objective analysis.

That he or she lives is telling; her DNA is confirming.

Spinning in circles
People claim that saying something as bold and accurate as “Human embryos are human beings because they are beings that are human” is circular in nature. It relies, they claim, upon self-affirming presumptions, or hides behind semantics. However, I believe that another popular mantra of pro-choicers is both a circular argument, and much more dangerous to ignore than the statement above.

Most Americans appear to be against/repulsed by abortion per se; even many people who describe themselves as pro-choice would probably agree with the statement, “I would never have an abortion myself, or encourage someone to do so, but I also believe in a woman's right to choose with regard to her own body.” The problem with this originates, I believe, from the fact that people choose to examine the mighty—even all-important—notion of personal liberty in the equation quite dogmatically, and before considering the reality of that the unborn child is his or her own human being.

I firmly believe that if many pro-choicers had first examined the question of personhood of the unborn child to unequivocal satisfaction, they would never have made it to the (suddenly, to them) clearly barbaric idea that abortion is a woman's right.

Anyway, the point is that the argument, “I would never have an abortion myself, or encourage someone to do so, but I also believe in a woman's right to choose with regard to her own body,” is circular as well; it relies upon the arbitrary assumption that an unborn child is not a person, and is merely a clump of flesh (or other such euphemism) attached to a woman. Obviously, the assumption made in this circular reasoning is significantly more dangerous than that made by pro-lifers when they say “Human embryos are human beings because they are beings that are human.” (In my opinion, it isn't even circular, in nature; if we use classic scientific definitions, and avoid semantic shenanigans, the statement is merely an elementary deduction by logic.)

But take a look at them; whereas this pro-life argument (if you allow that it is indeed circular) makes assumptions that could adversely affect the quality of a sovereign, experienced woman's life, the pro-choice argument makes assumptions that could outright end—often violently so—an innocent, highly dependent person's life.

Unconvinced?
I can imagine that there are those who would object to my attempt at objectively illustrating the humanness or personhood of an unborn child, at any stage of development. To a certain extent, I believe that some of these objections might possibly be sincere ones, as opposed to concocted obfuscating quibbles with semantics.

To such individuals, I pronounce that the burden of proof that an unborn child (embryo, fetus, blastocyst, zygote—whatever you call him or her, at whatever stage of development) is not a human being, rests heavily on your shoulders. How have you chosen to define a human being? When does a human life actually begin? I can virtually guarantee that any answer you give will be necessarily subjective, and frighteningly arbitrary. Even the most reasonable-appearing criteria for humanness are necessarily dangerously uninformed; and they cannot stand up to scrutiny. Let me present a few common examples:

“It is not a human without a (fully?) functioning (or developed) heart/brain/lungs/(other organ).”

This seems reasonable enough. However, on top of the fact that these are arbitrary criteria, this would obviously add the brain-damaged, mentally retarded and habitual druggies to the list of non-humans. Many more would take exception to referring to the dead as non-human, which this logic would also dictate. Plus, the same logic would also eliminate all cardiac arrest sufferers, underdeveloped newborns and appendectomy patients (like me) from the rolls of humanity.

“It's obviously not a human without basic physical attributes like arms, legs, eyes, and so on.”

True, one looks at an early embryo and fails to see the attributes classically considered innate to humanness. He or she obviously lacks many superficial similarities to the conceptual human. However, using this logic would force us down a road that refuses to acknowledge people born with birth defects, amputees and many blind people, as human beings.

“It's not a human if it cannot think properly or make decisions on its own.”

As usual, we must first invoke the AC (arbitrary criteria) quotient. Widely accepted members of the human race from infants to autistics to sufferers of anxiety disorders suddenly drop off the list, by this logic.

“An embryo/fetus cannot survive on its own” and/or “It's more parasite than human being (no, I did not make this up; it is a very common claim).”

Obviously, we get back into the myriad undisputed members of humanity like geriatrics, infants and invalids, stripping them of their humanness. True, these members of our highly developed race are not physically attached to those on whom they depend. However, that is hardly a legitimate distinction for justifying the murder of the unborn.

For one thing, the ability of a fetus to survive outside the womb has always depended on medical technology. Using the same criterion 200 years ago, it would've been permissible to kill babies as they actually emerged from the birth canal (not to say this isn't legal now—it is; it is almost universally frowned upon—even by pro-choicers). By this logic, this invented “window of morality” will slowly shrink from several months back in the 19th century to perhaps a only a few weeks in the foreseeable future. The inherent logic would indicate the stunning notion that pro-choicers are allowing their moral code to be dictated by technological achievement.

Also, I can apply equally absurd proclamations to your “it's connected to me” or “it's part of my body” argument to illustrate the ludicrousness of your point; would my sewing you to my belly, then sucking your brains out with a turkey baster, strike you as at all problematic?

Perhaps worse is the implication that the less independent or healthy or viable a person, the less they deserve to live—or the less they deserve their status as a human. Are you willing to proclaim that the more vulnerable a being, the less reason they have to live? This logic would dictate that the most physically powerful or adept humans are more human than others. It would follow that women are less human than men. Should the developmental age at which abortions are permitted be later for girls because theirs is the weaker sex?

On top of this, you're choosing a highly vivparocentric perspective of motherhood and responsibility. A fertilized egg is an almost perfect analog to the mother's womb. In the case of oviparous animals, their young develop in the protective environment of individual, external wombs. Still, throughout this stage of the developing life, the mother, it can be argued, is “connected” by an unseen “umbilical cord” (perhaps instinct) and is essentially immobilized until the “birth” of their offspring. Most folks would have a problem with destroying a cache of eggs—perhaps those of the California Condor or the Bald Eagle—on moral grounds. Likewise, it would be considered unnaturally abhorrent were the mother of these developing young to abandon her progeny, let alone suddenly take to destroying them violently.

Finally, we are forced to ask whether the embryo developing inside a snake's egg is somehow less of a snake than it would be were it developing vivparously (inside a snake). The answer is clearly “no.” That the animal is being carried around by the mother has no bearing on its status as a discreet member of that species; it naturally deserves the same distinction as an animal not being carried around by the mother.

Thus, the same alarming logic that calls the baby a parasite would permit that if there's a delay in cutting the cord (they really want to wait for dad to do it) mom can, at any point, bash the still-attached “parasite's” brains in, as he or she sits delivering his or her first cries in mommy's arms. Sound good to you?

I submit that the fact that we can't see the womb itself makes it much easier to permit the destruction—and murder—that is an abortion.

A potential person?
Fine, let's allow that an unborn child is merely a potential person. Hence we move to justify abortion on the grounds that because the child is not yet a person, or has not achieved such status, it would not be immoral to kill “it”.

First, it is important to mention that an unborn child will, after “its” birth, become a born child; this is basic biology. Sure, complications can emerge that threaten the health of the unborn, but, barring abortive intervention, mother nature will yield either the unfortunate miscarriage of a dead human being, or the birth of a full term, fully alive child. The point is, the term “potential” can be somewhat misleading as it almost connotes multiple possibilities. The term once again falls into equivocation, as it carries the additional baggage of referring to something that does not yet exist.

A medical student might be considered a potential doctor, but he could also still become a lawyer, or an accountant. Also, his “potentialness” to be a doctor neither guarantees ultimate doctorhood, nor dictates that it will be acheived with no particular effort on his part. On the contrary, even the potential doctor must take consistent, difficult and concerted action for many years before he can realize his potential. Perhaps most important, the potential doctor can decide to change to "potential something else" at any stage. Using “potential” to refer to an unborn human is particularly disingenuous because, contrary to the classical understanding of the word, the so-called “potential human” can only “become” a human.

Even if you discount my claim that an unborn child is indeed a human being, an abortion does more than kill this “potential human” right now. By ending the pregnancy, you are preventing an inevitable end. You choose to kill “it” now hoping to avoid the stigma associated with murdering a human being. The problem is, you are actively preventing “it” from becoming what even you admit is a “human being”.

When you call an unborn child a “potential human” and willfully kill “it”, you are accepting and admitting the quandary that the child is a human that you are preventing from developing. Otherwise, you would have no reason to trouble yourself with the question of an abortion. If “it” isn't human now, “it” won't be later on either (biology 101); so no need for an abortion.

The onus is with the pro-choicer because every single instance of childbirth in the known history of mankind has illustrated that whatever is in there growing is a human. It has never shown anything else. To claim “it” isn't a human is to arbitrarily and unjustly ignore reality. The claim that “it” is a human is supported by the fact that, if no one does anything but argue the idea for 9 months, there will be a human “at the end of the tunnel” every single time***. “It” will never not be a human—ever. The less you attempt to introduce unnatural processes (like abortion) the more “it” is human. The less intervention you attempt, the more “it” is human. The less you try to change the fact that “it” is human, the more he or she is human. The more you try to talk yourself out of the humanity of “it”, the more undeniable that he or she is human.

Although nothing anyone can say will change anything about “what” is growing in a woman, it often seems that pro-choicers believe that something they can say, will. As it stands, you must actively attempt to make “it” not human for “it” to even appear non-human at all. An embryo can only possibly be considered not human by a silly process of people arbitrarily assigning some other status. And you recognize, but won't necessarily admit to yourself, that the only way to truly hide “its” humanity is to prevent “it” from developing—to kill the unborn child.

An Experiment:
Some people want to verify the claim that the little single-celled “object” that has been created at fertilization is not a human.

Using previously unavailable technology, they are able to watch every moment of the gestational period (with any necessary visual optimization), beginning at fertilization. They appoint a group of a dozen watchers, each with 4 hour shifts, overlapping every two hours. This means that there are two observers simultaneously watching at two hour intervals. Each observer is assigned a syncopated blinking schedule, to eliminate the possibility of missing something while blinking. These individuals keep to their task of watching for a period of roughly 40 weeks. At this time, the “object” inside of the woman begins its attempts to vacate the premises. A doctor supervises the process, under the still watchful eyes of the observers, after which the “object” is pronounced “a baby girl!”

To the apparent shock and horror of the claimants, all observers have no choice but to attest to the fact that the same exact “object” that was first observed at a microscopic level slowly developed into is what ultimately made its way through the birth canal. The “object” never disappeared; it did not spontaneously mutate; it was not eaten and replaced by an invading human-like entity; at no point was the “object” switched out for an “actual” baby; no womb fairy was observed to arrive at implantation, or following 14 days or three weeks or at the end of the first trimester to bestow personhood upon the object with the touch of her wand; and despite the claimants' attempts to beat it out of them, they were unable to get the observers to admit to being able to identify a point at which the single-celled “object” became a human.

The claimants, instead of attempting to reevaluate their perspective, chose to don their cognitive dissonance-canceling earphones and continue along their path through life.

A Little Psychology
I think people have trouble realizing that embryos are indeed human because the term “human” is used to describe the abstract entity that we associate with being bipedal, having opposable thumbs, being mostly hairless, etc. What people probably never recognize is that they're engaging in “stagism” (discrimination based on developmental stage). It was a similar type of bias that had people for hundreds of years literally thinking of Africans and various indigenous peoples as somehow less-than-human.

Aboriginal Australians exhibit physical features that, especially to the unscientific eye, leave many of them looking alarmingly like another species that has been identified as being an ancestor to humans: Neanderthal.
It is unfortunately easy in retrospect to see how people chose to use external signals to justify assigning less-than-human status to these or the peculiar-haired, dark-skinned people of Africa. To them it could easily have seemed just as elementary as it does to people who think it's elementary that an embryo isn't human.

Much how all Africans and Australian aborigines probably looked “the same” to Anglos of the past, all embryos look “the same” to people now. Obviously the appearance of someone/thing is insufficient for determining personhood. No one seems to dispute that—except in the case of embryos.

Science's answers
Fortunately, we have science that can help nullify stagist bias. As mentioned before, the tool is DNA. An embryo has only human DNA and has only his or her own unique DNA within the realm of human DNA. As has already been discussed, nothing human will ever contain anything other than human DNA, nor will anything other than humankind have anything but its respective DNA.

And as you read previously, that the DNA of something removed from a human is identical to that of the human itself, does not qualify it as a human being; it's indeed human in nature, because of its DNA, but is not itself a human being.

Fertilization is the launchpad
Why do I so doggedly adhere to fertilization as the starting point of human life? I'll give you a hint: it is not arbitrary, as it is on the pro-choice side; I didn't pull it from my butt. Perhaps O'Rahilly can explain it for me. He calls fertilization “a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte . . . [D]evelopment is a continuous rather than a saltatory process, and hence the selection of prenatal events would seem to be largely arbitrary. (p. 8)”

To quote him once more, “just as postnatal age begins at birth, prenatal age begins at fertilization. (p. 88)” An unborn child is an unborn child, from moment one.

Conundra, loopholes and hypocrisy

Meat tenderizer: A loophole story
Let's pretend that a law was enacted that permitted terminating the life of anyone who has asleep for at least 48 consecutive hours. The law had been sanctioned by the voice of the people; they agreed that such a lengthy respite was inhuman. The rule was, “after 48 hours of sleep, a person is no longer considered a human being.” Mind you, the populace was still repulsed by the idea of murder, and generally was against taking a life in most other circumstances.

You have an annoying live-in cousin and you have found yourself jestingly wishing he was dead on occasion. One night, you find him asleep in front of the TV, drooling. His belly is exposed, rising and falling with his wheezy gasps and snores. You creep slowly toward him, intent on waking him in the manner most likely to cause him to wet himself, when an idea pops into your head: “What if he were to stay asleep for the next two consecutive days? I could certainly get away with more than a little prank.”

No, you won't murder him according to the classical understanding; everyone knows it's wrong to kill someone when they're awake and alert, but no one questions the same act if they have slept the requisite number of hours. You resolve to prevent him from awaking. Your first step is to apply a strong dose of chloroform to his nose. He sniffles, and possibly grunts—you aren't absolutely sure—so you tell yourself, “Alright, I'll have to start counting the hours from right now, just to be safe.”

You proceed to inject—at regular intervals—a powerful sleeping agent to keep him knocked out. The 48 hours pass without incident and, before witnesses, you introduce your log of the cousin's sleep marathon. It “checks out” in their eyes, and you announce your intent to bash his brains in. The witnesses shrug and request a front row seat. Retrieving a meat mallet from the kitchen cupboard, you stand over his sleeping body. You lift the heavy tool over your head and, with a powerful downward plunge, drive it squarely into his left temple, causing a deep indentation and likely killing him instantly. Just in case, you follow with a half-dozen more shots to his pulping head.

Allowing for the (what I see as) twisted logic of calling an unborn child a “potential human,” this story exemplifies the rationalization necessary to actually commit/assent to the abortion. In the horrific (albeit not too far from reality) society I describe above, everyone seems to agree that murder is wrong. Even killing a healthy, vivacious person just because they aren't currently awake is considered abominable. Your actions, especially as far as the authorities understood them, were technically OK, even being considered moral by society. Still, even within this horrific framework, there is something about what you actually did that even such a bankrupt society would condemn.

You had to dehumanize your cousin by preventing him from waking up. Without your direct and malicious intervention to impede the natural process of awakening, he would have risen as usual, and retained his “human being” status. In other words, your preventing him from waking effectively dehumanized him. While technically, few would discount that according to the accepted definition, the cousin was not a “human being” when you killed him, few if any would consider your actions to be moral, were they to realize that without your intervention, be would be a human being today—alive and well.

It's just another loophole.

Forcing brain death?
In your world of morality, perhaps you are in favor of euthanasia; if someone is legally determined to be brain dead, you reason, it is acceptable to “pull the plug.” Does this mean it's OK to willfully attempt to cause brain damage, and then pull the plug? If you justify abortion by seeing an unborn child as a “potential human,” your system of morality should also accept this idea.

The capital punishment conundrum
I find it interesting that pro-choiceness and opposition to capital punishment generally go hand-in-hand. My experience has been that many of the loudest voices in the death penalty abolition movement are actually opposed to state-sponsored killing under any circumstances. They (your Sean Penn, Ed Asner, Susan Sarandon ilk) jump on the West Memphis Three or Mumia Abu Jamal bandwagon, demanding a new trial, (even outright release; reference the slogans: “Free Mumia” and “Free The West Memphis Three”) when they actually couldn't care less about the parties' guilt. They are morally opposed to capital punishment, period. They're also pro-choice.

The most common claims for their stance: The prosecution process does not work; it favors the wealthy and the white. Most importantly, people can be and are wrongly convicted. Men are tried and, despite a prohibitive automatic appeals process, and years upon years on death row, the possibility still exists that a man will be wrongly executed.

In other words, if there's even a chance that the wrong man will lose his life—even in the rare, isolated instance—the death penalty should be abolished altogether. Extrapolating the principle here, it wouldn't be unreasonable to predict that nobody with the aforementioned view would ever support abortion, under any circumstance. Oops; as it somehow turns out, they're all for it. Despite being unable either to prove that an embryo/fetus/unborn child is not a living human being or even come close to the burden of proof required for a capital crime conviction, they're still all for it. Anyone else smell hypocrisy here?

Conservationists
Ever stop to wonder why conservationists seek protection for tadpoles when trying to save a species of frog? By pro-choice logic, as long as you kill it at the tadpole stage, it was never a frog. Go ahead and attempt to make this argument when you're prosecuted under the Endangered Species Act. Hell, shorten the argument by saying, “But abortion is legal.”

Embryonic stem cell research
The same proponents of embryonic stem cell research who claim that a 5-7 day old embryo is not a human—some even claim not an embryo—profess that the embryonic stem cell's value lies in its pluripotency, or ability to develop into each of the hundreds of adult cell types. Herein lies their value for cloning organs and tissues for medical use. In case the paradox here isn't as obvious as it seems to me, let me explain.

In order for an embryo to be of any value to stem cell researchers, it must be developed to the point that it clearly possesses the same ecto-, endo- and mesodermal differentiation capabilities of an adult. In other words, the more it becomes unquestionably human, the better suited the embryo is to be used for harvesting and destruction. They are simultaneously lauding an embryo's practical humanness for their purposes, while denying his or her humanness in principle.

Exceptional circumstances?
There are those who claim the pro-life title, but insist that abortion should be permissible in certain cases, including rape, incest and threat to the life of the mother. For this I would predictably draw their attention to the principle involved. Perhaps we can draw clarity from my initial formulation:

1. Murdering an innocent human being is wrong
2. An unborn child is an innocent human being
3. Abortion murders an innocent human being
(Therefore)
4. Abortion is wrong

Where do rape and incest fall in this situation? Do either of these atrocious assaults contribute anything to the four truths listed above that would change their fundamental value? As I see it, we can only hope to justify these exceptions if we are willing to say:

1. Rape is worse than murder
2. Incest is worse than murder
3. Therefore, both are worse than abortion

I somehow doubt that any of the above are claims that any pro-lifer would conscientiously make.

I think the problem arises from an innate need to find fairness in life. Clearly it is unfair for a victim of such a traumatic, horrific event as sexual assault to become burdened with the responsibility of carrying a child, as a direct result of the assault. No one would attempt to dispute this. Unfortunately, this does not change the reality that a human being was created by the union of the attacker's and victim's gametes. The unavoidable truth of the situation necessarily follows, sadly, but distinctly.

On the practical side of this idea of exceptions in assault cases, it would—as has been shown by analogous cases involving rape charges—represent another notorious loophole for pro-abortionism; as has been demonstrated by the incidence and permissibility of abortion-on-demand in America, the intent of “exceptions for assault” would be quickly bastardized to become “exceptions for anyone who is willing to claim an assault,” which itself would mean “exceptions for anyone who wants an abortion.”

With regard to life-threatening pregnancies, the key is that such situations are incredibly unlikely and almost never happen—particularly in the United States, where I aim my policy-oriented darts. Whereas a half-century ago, the notion of dying in childbirth was a sad reality (while not common), medical technology now encounters few situations in which it is likely to require a decision between the life of an unborn child and its mother.

However, in the rare case that the life—not mere health (this is another loophole for another discussion), but life—of the mother is at stake, abortion should be left to the discretion of the patients' doctor, but according to strict guidelines, under precisely aimed protocols. Because of the rarity of such situations, every doctor should be held to account for his actions, and should be discouraged—through fear of reprisals—from acting as an abortion shill.

If you're in favor of allowing exceptions because you're looking at “fairness,” first, please quit calling yourself pro-life already and second, consider the level of fairness for the child whose mom (or her loved ones) wants to kill him to help herself heal. If you call yourself pro-life, please do be pro-life.

Pro-life . . . really?
In a January 2000 presidential debate, Alan Keyes took John McCain to task for his essentially pro-choice version of pro-life. McCain had previously stated that if his daughter was seeking an abortion, he would call a family conference to discuss it, but the choice would ultimately be hers. Keyes responded:

“I've got to admit I think that that displayed a profound lack of understanding of the basic issue of principle involved in abortion. After all, if your daughter came to you and said she was contemplating killing her grandmother for the inheritance, you wouldn't say, "let's have a family conference." You'd look at her and say . . . 'no', because that is morally wrong.”

It was amusing to listen to McCain's attempt to muddle the issue with the typical “how dare you bring my daughter into this” technique; it was disconcerting to realize how pro-choice many so-called pro-lifers really are. Please, consider your own perspective. If you find yourself in McCain's camp, or in that of the exceptions-for-assault ilk, I request sincerely: Either fix your viewpoint, or join the pro-choice fiesta—one can't have it both ways.

In determining your perspective on the abortion issue, I recommend asking yourself what you would say to a daughter who was contemplating killing your mother for her inheritance. Next, use your answer to help determine your stance on abortion.

--------------------

* Incest/rape are both “red herrings” as they deceptively misdirect the argument; because the percentage of abortions performed following such assaults is virtually nil, it's a practical waste of resources to even address. Its real purpose is to bury the principle that abortion is murder deeply within the discussion. Since ~98%+ of abortions are for reasons other than rape and incest, it represents a mere diversion tactic. However, it is nevertheless covered above.

** All emphasis in quotations has been added by me, unless otherwise specified.

*** Yes, even if it is a dead one. And yes, miscarriages occur at stages throughout pregnancy, but for some reason no one ever takes solace by saying “Well, at least it wasn't an actual person—just a mass of cells” when an unborn child dies.

Opine: How To Funnel Terror Money & Kill Soldiers, by Bill Keller

2006-08-03T15:17:00.000-07:00

The New York Times specializes in offering the American public a wide array of news-oriented content, running the gamut from bleeding-heart self-loathing editorials in its Op-Eds to bleeding-heart self-loathing editorials in its reporting.

One of the Times' subspecialties that has gotten a measure of attention in recent weeks (I don't keep up with the news, so I am rarely on top of the "latest scoop") is its sweeping, arbitrary proscriptions of what is in my (and your) best interest (you know, "you'll thank me later"). This time, it's them deciding that it's of undeniable more vitality to my wellbeing for me to know that a European bankers club is (was, anyway) helping the US to catch terrorists, than for me and my countrymen to be safe.

Here are some snippets, with translations for the hard-of-thinking:

"The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas or into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database."

Translation: Be sure to keep transactions confined within countries, avoiding wire transfers (consider checks, money orders, direct debits) as much as possible. The infidels are watching.

"Much more limited agreements with other companies have provided access to A.T.M. transactions, credit card purchases and Western Union wire payments."

Translation: You can use ATMs and credit cards--the US has only limited access to these--but be careful. Also, let me mention a specific purveyor of wire transfers and money orders to avoid: Western Union is apparently a dead giveaway.

"The data does not allow the government to . . . see bank balances."

Translation: You've been trained to be careful with large balances, taking the dangerous road of attempting to open multiple accounts to help thin the appearance of funds across multiple institutions. Forget about that apparently archaic practice. Avoid the added chance of being discovered by nesting with a single account.

"Swift, a former government official said, was 'the mother lode, the Rosetta stone' for financial data."

Translation: You're welcome. It certainly was the mother lode before we got to it, but the secret's out. I give widespread cooperation and participation a few months, max. Once those who voluntarily complied get wind of our disclosure, you can bet that this particular claim will dry out.

Take this quote from our article: "By 2003, [Swift] officials were discussing pulling out because of their concerns about legal and financial risks if the program were revealed . . . 'How long can this go on?' a Swift executive asked." Imagine how they're feeling about it now!

This came when Times Limp-Dick-In-Charge Bill Keller expressly and informedly OK'd the publishing of details of a classified agreement between top US officials and owners of the "Swift" database of banking information, against unequivocal pleas from the Administration to refrain. According to Keller himself:

"The Administration case for holding the story had two parts, roughly speaking: first that the program is good — that it is legal, that there are safeguards against abuse of privacy, and that it has been valuable in deterring and prosecuting terrorists. And, second, that exposing this program would put its usefulness at risk."

He follows by admitting that the Times was aware of "strong arguments from proponents that [the program was legal and effective]."

Nevertheless, despite realizing that the secret program was likely providing an effective means of fighting terrorists, and that it appeared to legal, Keller pissed in America's face and ran the story.

His paper, Keller said, "served the public interest by accurately reporting on these programs so that the public can have an informed view of them."

I don't know about you, but I feel SO VERY INFORMED now. And, what a wonderful feeling. You know, it's not the sublime beauty of nature, or those care-free simple pleasures in life that provide the real joy. What takes the cake--and should for everyone--is that unmistakable ecstasy of being informed. In fact, I bet that the last thing a guy thinks, kneeling before a curtain in a makeshift studio, immediately prior to being deprived of his head by a hooded barbarian, is "ah, but I feel so informed now." Thank goodness.

Apologists have made the strange argument that the information was already in the public realm anyway.

Indeed, Keller himself insists that the US tracking of terrorist funds and sources had been widely reported prior to the Times story. By this, he opens a paradoxical can of worms: If the report was uncontroversial by its introduction to the public, why was it even newsworthy? Conversely, if the details of the operation were indeed newsworthy, how can it be justified as having already been widely reported?

I don't think too many thinking Americans are asking the Times to refrain from restating "the obvious" as a matter of national security. I, and others who have objected to the story, maintain that Keller's irresponsible ego strokes can't possibly have any effect on terrorist activities other than providing help. And it isn't my job to prove how damaging the publishing of highly classified, sensitive information on HOW the US has been tracking terrorist funds will prove to be.

It was Keller's job to prove that it could not possibly provide even the slightest aid to enemies of our nation.

Terrorists, Keller further admits, "continue to use the international banking system, because it is immeasurably more efficient than toting suitcases of cash." In other words, despite preferring the anonymity of primitive means of distributing funds ("toting suitcases of cash"), terrorists stuck to a system that they purportedly knew the US was monitoring. He appears to maintain, by this logic, that despite the Times revelations, terrorists will continue banking in the same way, using the same patterns, and operating within the same banks, regardless of their connection with the Swift database.

The obvious reality is that no conscientious American citizen would even attempt to make such a claim; Keller knows this, but he is no conscientious American, by any measuring stick. I tried to come up with a rational description of what Bill Keller actually is, but my imagination fails me. It seems to hit roadblocks at points where deep conspiracies attempt to unearth themselves--it's where I've stopped.
______________________________________

But Wait, There's More!

Think that one was bad? Take a look back at a January report that Times editors somehow neglected to title "How To Kill American Soldiers In Iraq."

Here are a few quotes from the article, and some more translations.

“The ceramic plates in vests currently worn by the majority of military personnel in Iraq cover only some of the chest and back.”

TRANSLATION: What you see on American troops is not necessarily armor-protected. For instance, despite the size of the armored vests, the ceramic--armored--part of the vest is much smaller (see diagram). You've got MUCH MORE to shoot at than you might've thought! :).

“In at least 74 of the 93 fatal wounds that were analyzed in the Pentagon study of marines from March 2003 through June 2005, bullets and shrapnel struck the marines' shoulders, sides or areas of the torso where the plates do not reach.”

TRANSLATION: US military armor does not protect soldiers' shoulders, sides and other areas of the torso (see diagram). Attack accordingly.

“At the same time, they have maintained that it is impossible to shield forces from the increasingly powerful improvised explosive devices used by insurgents.”

TRANSLATION: Focus on using your "improvised" explosive devices over your more expensive and (previously believed to be) more reliable, ready-made ordnance; these makeshift grenades do more damage, AND save you money!

“Yet the Pentagon's own study reveals the equally lethal threat of bullets.”

TRANSLATION: Still, nothing beats a well placed (see diagram) rifle shot. Even though you've got a smaller target area (see diagram), you can still kill Americans with good old fashioned rounds.

“Additional forensic studies by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's unit that were obtained by The Times indicate that about 340 American troops have died solely from torso wounds.”

TRANSLATION: Our pilfering of highly sensitive military documentation leads us to reiterate, you must keep on shooting at American torsos, because hundreds of troops are dying from such wounds alone. Keep your chin up (and aim just below theirs)!

"Pentagon officials declined to discuss details of the wound data, saying it would aid the enemy."

TRANSLATION: Sorry guys, there's only so much we can do. Watch for further communicades . . . Oh, and here's that diagram I promised you:

Not bad, Keller! Still waiting on your justification for this one.

July 21, 2006

Musing: Schmall-Star Game

2006-08-03T15:15:00.000-07:00

First of all, I want to look at a couple of bizarre choices for All-Star game participants. As I understand it, the fans vote for the 8 starting position players (infield, outfield, catcher), and the managers appoint the rest.

David Eckstein (SS, National League):

He was batting a respectable .311, the only other noteworthy stats being a high fielding percentage, an OBP (on base percentage) of .372 and a respectable 50 runs scored. If a player can't hit for power (like Eckstein), he needs to be able to get on base as often as possible, showing productivity by finding ways to score. A few worthy NL short stops were selected to appear in the game, namely Jose Reyes of the Mets (the obvious best-performer offensively) and Edgar Renteria from Atlanta, whose offensive year has been good. The former player is injured, however, which meant that Renteria had the start at short. However, to fill an open backup short stop spot, NL manager Phil Garner selected Eckstein.

His choice bothered me more on principle than anything else, because Eckstein has become something of a national broadcaster's hero, apparently due to some combination of his being small, having family members that have died, having a bad kidney or liver and believing in quack medical devices. Otherwise, he almost doesn't exist on the MLB radar. This year, for instance, he's arguably the 9th best (out of 16) offensive short stop in the National League, behind the individuals mentioned here and a couple others.

For the uninitiated, let me offer a small insight into the national broadcaster psyche. These guys are absolutely OBSESSED with "the story." It's also true of other sports, but--excepting maybe the Olympics--baseball is probably the most "storycentric". Guys like Tim McCarver fall over themselves to breathlessly recount a Cuban player's defection to the US, or a southern kid's decision to honor a dying father's wish. At times, it seems as though they'd prefer to have a field full of crappy players whose parents are dead or are recovering addicts or know someone with diabetes. Perhaps in this context, you can see how Eckstein has become what I paint him to be.

His fielding numbers definitely have potential to bolster his case, as he makes relatively few errors; however, the fielding percentage is somewhat deceptive. It fails to address either range or arm strength, which contribute significantly to a short stop's defensive value to a team. For example, probably every player on the below list but Bill Hall has more range (can get to more balls) than Eckstein, which translates into fewer balls leaving the infield, hence fewer hits, fewer runs, etc. A weak arm excuses inferior players from what should really be considered errors. Eckstein's weak arm means that opposing players have a better chance of beating out an infield hit and avoiding a 4-6-3 (2nd to SS to 1st) double play. Thus, Eckstein's ability to avoid technical errors does not necessarily make him a superior defensive shortstop to his peers; his defensive numbers are therefore much less of a boon than one might first believe.

So, looking at the list below, you might notice that all four of the listed short stops scored and drove in more runs, hit more home runs, slugged higher and earned a higher OPS (on base percentage plus slugging--considered a good measure of overall productivity). Three of the four also stole more bases, at much higher success rates, and drew more walks than Eckstein. Conversely, he bested all the others listed in only number of hits, batting average and (lowest) number of strikeouts. In my personal interpretation of statistics, none of these numbers means much on its own.

Now let's look at a few of the individuals, comparing each to Eckstein.

Bill Hall is clearly the "power" shortstop of the bunch, with 16 more home runs, more doubles, triples, twice as many RBIs, more runs scored, a higher slugging percentage, and a MUCH higher OPS than Eckstein. He's the worst fielder by percentage, has the fewest hits, stolen bases, and the lowest batting average and on-base percentage of the group.

Felipe Lopez represents the "all around" hitter with more runs, RBI, doubles, home runs, and triple the number of stolen bases of Eckstein, and higher slugging and OPS numbers. Hanley Ramirez, the Florida rookie, is similar to Lopez, but probably better, having scored 69 runs and stolen 26 bases.

Now we come to the Giants' old-timer, Omar Vizquel, who stacks up well against Eckstein, stat for stat, and would clearly have been a better choice. Vizquel beats the guy in games played, runs scored, triples, home runs, RBI, walks, stolen bases (and percentage), on-base percentage, slugging, OPS and fielding. In the latter category, Vizquel is a tier above Eckstein in defensive range and arm strength as well. Eckstein has a higher batting average (and more hits) and more doubles than Vizquel.

G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS Fielding
Bill Hall 79 293 52 77 23 4 17 41 21 90 5 2 .263 .311 .543 .854 .957
Felipe López 85 343 55 92 14 1 9 30 47 66 23 6 .268 .356 .394 .749 .959
Hanley Ramírez 83 332 69 90 19 5 6 25 31 77 26 5 .271 .337 .413 .750 .969
Omar Vizquel 85 311 56 94 10 5 3 28 39 30 11 4 .302 .380 .396 .775 .992
________________________________________________________________
David Eckstein 83 344 50 10713 1 1 19 24 30 6 3 .311 .372 .363 .735 .987

(Wow, this is boring)

Anyway, it sucks, but Eckstein had no business at the All-Star game, or anywhere near it. He should have been in line behind all four of the guys listed below, plus another four guys. But, being the runt of the litter, he gets the playing time nod over several All-Stars who stayed on the bench, and a good 4 or 5 short stops who weren't even there.

Mark Buehrle (SP, American League):

On the other side, we see an obvious example of a manager playing favorites with members of his team. Ozzie Guillen, manager of the World Champion White Sox (and AL All-Star skipper) defecated his own Mark Buehrle into the pool of players at the game, in a move that is nothing short of unbelievable.

Guillen willingly placed Buehrle, a 9-game winner, onto the All-Star roster ahead of fully eight 10+ game winners, including five of whom had lower--some significantly--ERAs than his player. Against the list of the 13 players with more wins or lower ERAs than Buehrle who were not on the All-Star roster ahead of him, only one (Chien-Ming Wang) had fewer strikeouts than the White Sox pitcher.

The list of pitchers whose stats clearly put them above Buehrle is nine players long, including rookies Francisco Liriano (10-1, 102 K, 1.83 ERA) and Justin Verlander (10-4, 3.01 ERA) and standouts like Jeremy Bonderman (8-4, 111 K, 3.46 ERA), Mike Mussina (10-3, 108 K, 3.24 ERA) and Ervin Santana (10-3, 3.96 ERA). John Lackey has posted a remarkable 2.88 ERA, and Nate Robertson and Gil Meche boast 8 wins each and 3+ ERAs.

One player with a higher ERA nevertheless belonged on the roster more than Buehrle; Erik Bedard, the Orioles pitcher, whose recent resurgence has steadily chipped away at his once balloonlike ERA, has won 10 games, including his last five, during which he has allowed just 5 runs. By contrast, Buehrle is plummeting from his early season success, winning just 3 of his past 8 starts, with a dismal 6.05 ERA during that period.

W L K ERA
*Francisco Liriano 10 1 102 1.83
John Lackey 7 5 97 2.88
Justin Verlander 10 4 69 3.01
Mike Mussina 10 3 108 3.24
Nate Robertson 8 5 78 3.36
Jeremy Bonderman 8 4 111 3.46
Gil Meche 8 4 90 3.83
Ervin Santana 10 3 81 3.96
Chien-Ming Wang 9 4 42 4.00
Erik Bedard 10 6 88 4.28
Josh Beckett 11 4 92 4.75
Freddy García 10 0 66 4.91
____________________________________________________
Mark Buehrle 9 6 54 4.02

Guillen, a successful big league manager should know that, if anything, marked improvement should merit more appreciation in the absence of excellence than should sucking, or becoming worse with time.

While we're on Ozzie Guillen, let me mention another baseball-related peeve. Right up there with the "give 120% out there" and "be a team player" clichés are some of the annoying hyperbolic proclamations managers tend to make; often, they refer to their plans for game management. Prior to the All-Star game, Ozzie Guillen said he'd manage "like it was game
seven of the World Series."

This statement is heavily influenced by the MLB public relations shake up that resulted from the unthinkable TIE that occurred a few years back at 2002's All-Star game. Through both managers' pussyfooting "make sure that everyone gets a chance to play" little league style, with the game tied in late innings, it became evident that with nearly empty benches, and only a few pitchers left, neither side wanted to continue. In his matchless wisdom, commissioner Bud Selig decided to call the game a tie. Since that debacle, MLB has tried to give the All-Star game some intrinsic value, adding to the exhibition's allure the fact that the victorious league would also earn home-field advantage during the year's World Series. Thus began the "This time it counts" campaign, aimed at convincing us fans that nothing like the 2002 All-Star catastrophe would ever be repeated. Thus also began the need to convince us through every sound bite and gold lamé graphic, that MLB was taking these games very seriously.

Anyway, obviously Guillen's statement was absolute BS, since he followed the ageless tradition of giving the starting, and subsequent pitchers one or two innings apiece, arbitrarily substituting inferior on-field players after designated numbers of innings. In any "real" major league game (never mind game seven of the World Series), a manager will offer his best available lineup, start his best available pitcher, and leave all starters in the game until they either run out of gas, or--in later innings--match up poorly with the opposing batter/pitcher. In many cases, a manager will make a late-inning defensive replacement, or designate a pinch-runner when a precious potential run has reached base. Otherwise, the starters, or next best available players, generally remain in the game for the duration.

Not a huge deal; no one actually expects managers to treat the All-Star game like a real game. It just bothers me because it is an outright lie that is perpetrated and lauded and accepted without comment by everyone involved. It's annoying.

*I realize that Liriano WAS added to the AL All-Star roster as a late replacement, which is nice, but does not change the fact that Guillen chose Buehrle ahead of Liriano; by his actions, he had already made the claim, "Buehrle is more deserving of the honor than Liriano."

July 13, 2006

Opine: Rights Usurpation In Da House

2006-08-03T15:11:00.000-07:00

Rights Usurpation: Gun Control

Some recent reading that stemmed from researching the hubbub over the New York Times report on my government's use of financial information to root out terrorists, eventually buried me in the issue of gun control.

A staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment, which prohibits infringement on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," I have formulated an important opinion that I had--for whatever reason--never considered before.

First, the 2nd Amendment Text:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Many have argued that the 2nd amendment grants gun ownership rights only to members of the military, or some form of regulated militia. However, as is the case throughout these foundational documents, and their contemporaries, the illustrative clauses within these declarations offer no defining or binding insight.

Take a look at this early statement from our Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

While I recognize that the phrasing is different from that of the above Amendment, the same logic that ascribes undue importance to sections of these documents could be used to irrationally limit our rights as humans.

Reworded, it could retain its meaning, but read:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that Their Creator, being necessary to their endowment, all men have certain unalienable Rights.

Of course, no one would argue that a lack of a belief in a Creator would nullify one's unalienable rights. Similarly, it is silly to contest that, outside the bounds of "a well regulated militia" the right to keep and bear arms is nullified. It's simply disingenuous. As it turns out, it is also beside the point.

Both the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights (and the Constitution itself, I would assume) are all about our unalienable rights, as granted by our Creator. These documents do not exist to bestow rights, or delineate them; they exist to affirm that our rights are indeed ours, and not handouts from the government. Our rights supercede and transcend government, being innate to all humanity.

Possibly stronger in its support of the notion of gun ownership freedom than even the 2nd Amendment, is the 9th, which states:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I believe that it wastes the time of parties on both sides of this debate to toil inside the dust cloud of 2nd Amendment interpretation when the 9th Amendment already tells us "I don't give a flying fack about what right you think the 2nd Amendment is intended to grant—it's not the government's job to dispense rights like happy pills at mental hospitals." Basically, the founders appear to have done their best to touch on the areas--as specifically as was appropriate--that were of the most pressing importance to them. But every right is mine, first, irrespective of anything the Gub'ment says or does.

At times the government (as chosen by its people) is called upon to protect such rights, by enforcing established law; however, this by no means constitutes a usurpation of rights. Rights aren't generally forfeited even by the punishment of criminals. If someone is in jail for a DUI accident, his "right to drive" has not disappeared; he's in trouble not for exercising his "right" to drive, but for endangering others, possibly injuring others and possibly damaging others' property.

Are there responsibilities to accompany rights? Sure thing. However, these responsibilities are not to be delivered by proscription by Massa Gub'ment (to quote Allen Keyes), but punitively to those who show an inability to act responsibly. Don't regulate by potential, or on intentions, or using guilt by association; regulate according to what people actually do.

This translates easily into the issue of gun control. Although it really shouldn't be an issue, there are many who want to limit or outright eliminate the right of Americans to own and carry firearms. The arguments are numerous, but range from weak to irrelevant. To name a few:

Why do you/we NEED guns? (yes, that is actually a "point" made by real people) Rifles are ok for hunting/recreation, but why handguns? etc

They're dangerous.
People will become vigilantes. (if only)
Look at ___________ (fill in with Columbine, or any other incident in which firearms played any role)
Only rednecks/undereducated want guns.
The 2nd Amendment is outdated or refers/referred to militias.
You're paranoid.

And so on.

Most of these "points" are easy to refute, or can be trumped, by the 9th Amendment, or the Declaration of Independence, or by simply considering why our country even exists.

The fact that is either ignored by, or somehow lost on, anti-gun types is that gun control has not ever, nor can it possibly, contribute to a reduction in crime, or violent crime, or gun crime, etc., precisely because gun control legislation can only remove guns from responsible citizens' hands. And study after study has shown that virtually ZERO* gun crimes are ever committed by otherwise law abiding gun owners. However, since it's the government's burden to establish that there is a responsibility inherent to gun ownership that is being violated by Joe Firearm Owner, most important is the fact that there's absolutely no evidence of any justification for limiting law-abiding citizens' access to firearms.

I believe that those who tend to suckle at the teat of government (usually someone classifiable as "liberal") and preach from its pulpit, have a pathological obsession with centralized tinkering. They have this idea that Massa Gub'ment should be INVOLVED here, and here, and here, and there, oh, and especially (way over) THERE. They speak and act from an apparent position of disrespect for unalienable rights; in their minds, it IS indeed Massa Gub'ment's job to delineate rights, and withdraw them as purportedly necessary. While being unwilling to admit this perspective, their actions and policy proposals accomplish their own indictment.

In conclusion, I'll state my philosophy that the idea of usurping one's right to _________ is anti-American. Be that right one of speech, activity, consumption, thought, prosperity or liberty itself.

Punish the guilty; hold to account the responsible. Don't preempt the unfavorable, or inhibit the liberty of Joe (or Tyrone, or Juan, or Hiep) Normal Guy.

Incidentally, I do not own a gun.

Go here for a cool opinion from a guy:
http://www.gunowners.org/op9805.htm

__________

*I will say things like "virtually zero" when the number is so insignificant as to have no legitimate value in a debate. In other words, if you think it would be ridiculous to argue about the validity of a national domestic abuse epidemic by saying "Woman aren't the only ones abused--men report being abused by women too," then you fully understand why I term things this way. In the case of gun crime, the percentage of gun casualties (both accidental and intentional) by otherwise law-abiding folks is so minuscule, it would make "Women Abusing Men" domestic abuse appear worthy of a national awareness campaign. It's a practical ZERO.

July 06, 2006

Opine: Proud Of Myself And My Well-Honed BS Detector

2006-08-03T15:10:00.000-07:00

So I'm reading more about this "Net Neutrality" thing (about which I haven't formed an opinion, since I'm still reading) and it ends up getting me to a story from late last year.

As is often the case, Bill O'Reilly was in trouble for some comments he made. Let me preface the following with the fact that I can't stand the guy. He's condescending, rude, and disingenuous about actually seeking the truth behind issues. He purports to be hard-hitting and balanced, but, like every other individual who makes similar claims, he's full of hot air. No one is objective or balanced, ever; but his sin has more to do with the arrogance with which he claims neutrality and a solemn duty to uncover the truth.

OK, the issue:

Basically, O'Reilly made comments on his radio show that were attacked as "condon[ing] violence against San Francisco." This interested me, so I read the comments.

Here's what a San Francisco board of supervisors letter to Fox News provided as the quote, and used in a letter asking the FTC to "closely examine" license renewal requests and petitions against KNEW and the show's distributor, Clear Channel. He was opining following San Francisco's vote to ban miltary recruiting through city schools:

"[I]f Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."

Alarming? Not terribly. Offensive? To some, I'm sure. A legitimate incitement to violence? Hardly.

However, these questions are all beside the point. As soon as I read the above quote, my bullshit warning system immediately began blaring uncontrolably. I "knew" this quote required more context than what was being provided. My instant guess was "he's probably saying something like 'don't be surprised when people start saying . . . '" before the words quoted above were actually uttered.

Unfortunately, most quotes were either identical to the one above, or contained an additional lead-in statement. These quotes read like this:

"Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead. And if al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."

The minor qualifying "you want to be your own country?" section adds a minor amount of sympathy to O'Reilly's comments. It changes from "If terrorists come in to blow up SF, I, Bill O'Reilly, don't give a damn" to "well, considering you're unwilling to support military recruitment like the rest of the country, I, Bill O'Reilly, have no qualms with them blowing you up." Not quite as bad, but still unsatisfactory for me.

I needed a radio transcript, or at least enough of the context to actually figure out why O'Reilly would use such harsh words. It took me a long time on Google--and I'm an adept web researcher, but I indeed found "the rest of the story," that I frankly was expecting. Lo, here is the quote, in its proper context:

"Hey, you know, if you want to ban military recruiting, fine, but I'm not going to give you another nickel of federal money. You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say, "Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead."

And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."

Suddenly, with a duly diligent attempt to actually learn what he really said, we take the leap from "If terrorists come in to blow up SF, I, Bill O'Reilly, don't give a damn" to "If I were the president, I would say 'Considering your unwillingness to support military recruitment as a city, you don't deserve military protection or federal funding. If you want to isolate your city, America will be sending the message to al Qaida, 'Hey, SF is all yours; have at it. Blow up the tower, for all we care.''"

There's a slightly different ring to it when the quote is put in an honest context. And actually, rereading the longest quote I have found (above), I suspect there is probably at least a little more establishing text that would further diminish the apparent fire of the statement. I'll update if I find that to be the case.

What's really alarming to me is that almost every news outlet, blog or other web medium I could find was using the most misleading of the above quotes; less diligent (although I read it as intellectually dishonest) writers and speakers champed at the bit, frothed at the mouth, and ate it up like f***ing idiots. So despite O'Reilly not condoning violence (many writers chose to call it "inciting violence"--a much more serious charge*), probably 95% of those with published analyses of the situation still make the claim. That's what you'll see/hear/read, and it's what your average Joe will remember about this. That's plain wrong.

*It gets worse; a major voice in this issue, the far-left Media Matters for America, had this to offer, through its president: "He's encouraging terrorist attacks. It's over the top." Once again, that's what you'll see/hear/read, and it's what your average Joe will remember about this. That's plain wrong.

June 30, 2006

Opine: More On Evolution and Science

2006-08-03T15:08:00.000-07:00

An inability to sleep and my buddy John's comments about science bring me to this entry. My spending hours and hours over several years reading the weekly commentaries at http://randi.org has been highly instrumental in helping me see the world more clearly. However, the same principles of the attainment of knowledge that James Randi has helped me learn, have actually helped me realize how religion-like some of what he writes really is.

To put it as simply a possible, I have gained a confidence that there is nothing in life that cannot be explained using natural laws that we generally understand quite well. There have always appeared to be exceptions to this rule dating to a time when the rule was considered the exception. That tribes in the East Indies and Africa still retain beliefs about omens and punishments from gods and demons illustrates that despite the existence of natural law, many things appear to be only explainable by invoking supernatural forces. Same goes for the developed world, where millions upon millions still choose to credit and blame some god or other for natural disasters, diseases and other banes to humanity.

Scientific history is replete with examples of people's accepting a particular story to explain a natural phenomenon, only to ultimately bow to the superior explanatory abilities of the scientific method. I have no doubt or question of this principle. It has happened, and necessarily will continue to happen, indefinitely.

However, what I believe I am seeing as personified by James Randi, is an unscientific, quasi-religious attitude toward ANY opposing perspective on ANY issue. In this, I hope against hope to separate myself from the crowd of those who expect science to perpetually seriously reconsider facets of every law and theory at every whim of every new age type who posits another quack idea. If current science basically "knows" the claim cannot be true, it's a waste of resources to revisit it. I honestly consider this to be what separates my mode of dissent from that of those considered "wackos". I believe that the areas where I see scientific holes happen to have become "sacred cows" that automatically generate considerable venom from worshipers at the altar of Science (I think the capitalized Science should refer to it being canonized--Science to these folks, like the Pope to Catholics--is infallible).

As mentioned previously, one of these sacred cows is evolution. My observation is that virtually (if not) every basic scientific theory or law can be explained to a moderately intelligent layman. When it can't, it begins a rapid descent toward the realm of those who donned the ancient cloaks of the Priesthood during a time when commoners were unable to read or comprehend the True Meaning of the Holy Bible and its teachings. I'm happy to accept a few minor "smoothings over" in order to create a simplified version of a purportedly complicated scientific idea.

With evolution, I have read opinions that the notion is so very basic as to be understandable to any child; likewise, I have read authoritative proclamations that the evolutionary process is far too complicated for any average individual to grasp, in the absence of immense training and above average comprehension. Since I have no wish to create a strawman or two, I won't claim either of these to be definitive of the established perspective of evolutionists.

However, I am certain that the "simplicity" school of thought cannot possibly stand up to scrutiny--at least not mine. To me, the biggest problem with trying to get evolution to explain the basic single-celled organism-to-human idea, is that it is necessary to make an unwarranted "leap of faith" just to make it stick. No scientist can reproduce this purported leap in any lab. No scientist can observe direct evidence of such a leap in our current world. Sure, when I compare a bird skeleton to the fossilized skeleton of a small bipedal dinosaur, I can easily see that they could have some common ancestry--that part makes sense. But the simplicity argument ends there for me. It could be circumstantial evidence of evolution; it could be circumstantial evidence of something else. I don't know. Evolution is not a fact. When a scientist calls it a fact, just know that he is being disingenuous about it; it's not the same kind of fact as "I exist" or "I have a car." It's a semantic diversion--it's apparently meant to scare the layman into submission. Calling something true doesn't make it so.

Any good theory should be demonstrable. It shouldn't just have evidence that MIGHT work within the framework of the theory. Frankly, I think the weakness of evolution shines through by the fact that every evidence found to point toward evolution COULD just as easily point to so-called "intelligent design." Granted, I consider evolution to be a more likely theory than ID, since it would be the first instance of apparent supernatural intervention that could not be explained by natural law. However, the point is that the primary reason these items are considered evidence of the theory of evolution is that the theory has been accepted by science.

A microorganism sheds a nucleotide and spontaneously mutates: EVOLUTION!

A fish-like creature has arms: EVOLUTION!

If/when this magic theory appears to hit a bump in the road, does it nullify the theory? No. Should it? Not necessarily, but it should certainly cause more than a shuffled frenzy to find some other way to make the theory stick--like RANDOM MUTATIONs. Quite honestly, if a scientist were ever to find a means to cause, or even observe, one of these mutations, in which the organism appeared to actually GAIN net information by the process, I believe that could really make its mark.

Since this hasn't happened, and while putative evidence supporting evolution is plenty, it isn't necessarily evidence that the theory is correct. In other words, in some instances science has been able to say, "If this theory is correct, then the following should be true and have existed on earth." However, it has been amazingly inconsistent. A good theory should be able to point to what its evidence should be. Evolutionary theory has been more likely to act like a shot in the dark, looking for bullet holes, than like this idea of a "good theory".

Something else to understand that evolutionists tend to improperly imply, is that one must subscribe to evolution if one cannot provide a better, equal or even seemingly less probable substitute. The weakness of other arguments has no bearing on the strength of the evolutionary theory. Conversely, the RELATIVE strength of evolutionary theory compared to other alternatives cannot possibly add to its intrinsic credibility. Evolution is a theory--one theory--and should be treated as such.

Should creationism be taught in schools in a scientific setting? No way, Jose. As I have stated previously, it runs counter to what the history of scientific discovery has shown us. Should evolution be taught as science? Sure, as long as we admit its limitations, and avoid the trap to dumping the baby (evolutionary theory has holes) out with the bathwater (adding creationism to a science curriculum). You don't have to deify evolution just because a kooky alternative is presented. It's still a pretty flimsy theory.

I also have a similar take on . . . . GLOBAL WARMING, specifically with regard to anthropogenic contributions and prognostications of its long-term effects. The global warming alarmists subscribe to a similar method of thinking, and particularly, of ridiculing and attempting to stifle dissenting opinions.

I will try to cover that another day.

June 30, 2006

Musing: I am studying evolution

2006-08-03T15:07:00.000-07:00

Growing up, I generally accepted the notion of evolution as presented by science, despite a belief in a God, because the ideas could co-exist. However, in my recent readings, I am coming up against the notion that the Darwinian theory of evolution, and NeoDarwinism, appear to contain pretty weak ideas.

Here's the gist:

1) Darwinism necessarily assumes an origin based on natural law, of course.

I agree with the idea, since throughout history, phenomenon upon phenomenon has been accounted for by natural law, following years--even centuries--of belief in supernatural origins. Something's apparent unexplainability does not make it supernatural. Our experience as humans has consistently shown that it merely means we haven't figured out how nature does it. So this idea is fine.

2) Darwinism comes up with a theory to account for the origins of life.

This is where it gets super hazy. Because of how "textbook" explanations attempt to simplify (read OBFUSCATE) apparent groups of evolutionary-type processes under the title EVOLUTION, they end up being able to lump evidence of one thing into the canon of evidence for NeoDarwinian evolution.

Here's a simple way to look at it: No scientist has ever been able to produce the process whereby one animal becomes another--or anything like it. I realize that experts in primitive man don't claim that we evolved from apes that are identical to monkeys we see at the zoo. I know it's not that simple. But science is unable to reproduce any example of this process that can be reasonably considered analogous to the idea of a single-cell organism evolving to man. What science has done, is show that mutations can occur at microbiological levels within the constraints of life forms. They have, for instance, shown that a microorganism can mutate spontenously to resist an antibiotic, by randomly changing a nucleotide.

The problem is that science has taken such phenomena, and extrapolated to the unwarranted conclusion that this is evidence of large-scale evolution as subscribed to by NeroDarwinism. As I understand it, this is unprecendented in 21st century science; the subscription to a theory without the ability to demonstrate its truth.

I have heard people answer "evolution is only a theory" with, "Right, and so is gravity." However, I can conduct my own experiment RIGHT NOW, to support this theory. And I am unable to do anything to discount the theory. The way science appears to be backing up its evolutionary theory is like me trying to support the theory behind gravity by holding a ball against the ground.

Anyway, I am still learning about this, and am sincere. I hate to ever be on the fringe of anything because it becomes a constant battle, and literally sickens me. I was happy with evolution as a theory. Now I am less so.

In parting, here's an excellent quote from Dr. Lee Spetner, a man obviously involved in exposing the weakness of the theory:

"The evolutionist community, from Darwin to today, has based its major claims on unwarranted conclusion jumping. Darwin saw that pigeon breeders could achieve a wide variety of forms in their pigeons by selection, and he assumed that the reach of selection was unlimited. Evolutionists, who have seen crops and farm animals bred to have many commercially desirable features, have jumped to the conclusion that natural selection, in the course of millions of years, could achieve many-fold greater adaptive changes than artificial selection has achieved in only tens of years. I have shown in my book that such extrapolations are ill founded because breeding experiments, such as those giving wheat greater protein content or vegetables greater size, result from mutations that disable repressor genes. The conclusions jumped to were false because they were based on data that could not be extrapolated to long sequences. One cannot gain information from a long sequence of steps that all lose information. As I noted in my book, that would be like the merchant who lost a little money on each sale, but thought he could make it up on volume."

June 29, 2006

Musing: God's True Message

2006-08-03T15:06:00.000-07:00

I Just Learned That The Koran Is God's True Message!!

A moment ago, I learned that the Koran is God's word, by the most miraculous means. Let me quote from Submission.org (no, it ain't an S&M thing--not officially anyway; it's what Islam actually means):

"Any reader of this book can easily verify the Quran's mathematical miracle. The word "God" (Allah) is written in bold capital letters throughout the text. The cumulative frequency of occurrence of the word "God" is noted at the bottom of each page in the left hand corner. The number in the right hand corner is the cumulative total of the numbers for verses containing the word "God." The last page of the text, Page 372, shows that the total occurrence of the word "God" is 2698, or 19x142. The total sum of verse numbers for all verses containing the word "God" is 118123, also a multiple of 19 (118123 = 19x6217).

Nineteen is the common denominator throughout the Quran's mathematical system.
This phenomenon alone suffices as incontrovertible proof that the Quran is God's message to the world."

As you can see, there is no room for doubt anymore. Wake up, infidels.

June 01, 2006

Opine: Our Way Works; Keep Your Kinky Social Experimentation To Yourselves, You Dorks

2006-08-03T15:05:00.000-07:00

Sovereignty, the UN, and stuff.

Here's a statement ascribed to John Quincy Adams, from Independence Day, 1821:

Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been unfurled, there will America's heart, her benedictions, and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause by the countenance of her voice and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that, by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the color and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world; she would no longer be the ruler of her own spirit.

It's an almost perfect description of how our nation should be handling itself in international relations. The (non-)italicized (by me) portion is where we have clearly gone wrong. The rest is hardly descriptive of current policy status and, while retaining minute suggestions of its ancestry, is well on its way down the slippery chute to the incinerator.

Step one needs to be the proverbial "f*** off" to entities that attempt to stand in the way of reaffirming this philosophy. This giant step obviously includes rebuking purported allies across the globe for their disloyalty and—in too many instances—outright enmity. The leadership of governments from Canada to Germany to France should be held to account, at the very least, in strong public reprimand from the president of the US. Screw diplomacy; there's no legitimate excuse for it. It's a euphemism for pussyfooting at the expense of action. Seriously.

Listen, man; think about it for a second: There's really no way of justifying diplomacy that doesn't involve some faggy, unjustifiable moralization effort. Don't try to explain to me that something is “just plain wrong.” It amounts to nothing more than ad hominem blathering. You're engaging in the ridiculously humorous practice of calling my argument names. You might as well say “Diplomacy Is Unjustifiable is a poo-head!” But Ed, do right and wrong have any meaning? Yes, sir. Can anything every be right or wrong “just because”? Nope.

OK, so this means either stringing them all up (diplomats) or handing out mass pink slips, and introducing the idea of working for a living. It's private sector time, friends!

Step two is to figuratively (and if necessary, literally*) wipe the United Ass of America with the toilet paper that is the United Nations. The figurative means to this end is formally berating this totalitarian collection of corrupt governments, even to the extent of pointing and laughing. We must also state with absolute certainty:

“Your foundations lie in clandestine corners, where your explicit aim to control—not prevent, or abolish—all earthly warfare, had its beginnings. By the paternalistic perspectives of your forbears, you nod to yourselves internally declaring that your clear moral superiority dictates your right to hold the keys to our gun cabinets.

“Your attempted implication of the United States of America in your rites of world domination ends now. We officially and unconditionally denounce this absolutely corrupt body of international extortionists known as the United Nations, as irrelevant, useless and an enemy to the sovereign aims of our nation. We withdraw our membership in this, and all auxiliary manifestations of this, organization, and demand immediate evacuation of all United States-owned premises currently occupied by any of its agents.

“Violators of this last order will be shot with guns drawn from the cabinets of private American citizens. All citizens thereafter coming into contact with the UN Secretary General, in particular, are thence permitted to beat the living hell out of Kofi, anon.”

See, unlike the UN, the United States has no desire to “become the dictatress of the world.” The country merely demands to retain its status as “ruler of her own spirit.” Whereas the “fundamental maxims” of UN policy involve replacing “liberty [with] force,” our nation guides itself by an understanding that “enlisting under other banners than her own” guarantees the “usurp[ment of] the standard of freedom.”

Steps 3, 4, 5 and so on should flow naturally from this philosophy. Since many of our nation's sins will manifest themselves in future attempts to go “abroad in search of monsters to destroy,” some of the necessary upcoming steps cannot yet be prescribed.

However, I have an idea that one of these will necessarily deal with the situation in Iraq, where thousands of loyal Americans are willingly endangering themselves for a “cause” in which they have no choice but to believe, but which—if the words of our own president have any weight—appears to have no legitimate objective. Perhaps it did, at some point, but not anymore.

John Quincy Adams said it damn good.

*The word literally is falling victim to verbicide, by folks' use of it where its antonym should be used. Literally literally means literally. So in the above statement, I use literally to refer to the possibility of actually assigning fecal remnants to the rows of tables on UN premises, from actual American backsides. Sure, the United Ass of America is collectively figurative—as is the characterization of the UN as toilet paper, but the act of wiping, and its result, are meant in a very literal sense—again, if necessary.

May 05, 2006

Opine: What the illegal alien protests (have?) accomplished.

2006-08-03T15:03:00.000-07:00

When news hit that illegal aliens would be striking or whatever you call it, there were mixed notions of what—if any—effect it would have on the nation. These predictive ideas ranged from the cynical ("nothing will change") to the idealistic ("the world will explode"); I was among those who expected very little to occur; however, upon reflection, I began to doubt my initial assumption.

Since the effort was apparently organized to show what our nation would be like without the myriad contributions by illegal aliens to our society, I formulated the following list of a few applicable happenings I have been able to observe with illegals removed from the picture:

Two million American citizens found jobs.
A recount of all major election returns from the past 30 years showed that guys like Bob Dole, Gerald Ford and George Bush were seriously shafted.
Police in Los Angeles tore up all but 5% of outstanding homicide arrest warrants, and had a big party.
Gang membership dwindled to less than half of its prior numbers.
By the absence of just 6% of the nation's population, nearly one-fifth of all crime was magically eliminated .
The populations of nearly one-third of federal prisons were eliminated, and prison overcrowding began giving way to prison closings.
Nearly all threat of internally coordinated terrorist attacks disappeared; resources became sufficient to properly--and securely--address new requests for citizenship.
Millions of children were awestruck by their first ever bouts with actual attention from teachers, and recovered the 10% of their learning time previously reserved for giving special bilingual attention to "our diverse friends."
Every kid had his own desk, with room to stretch his legs.
California announced that, using freed education funds, it could now supply additional books, computers, and other instructional equipment to nearly 80% of its 400,000+ classrooms.
Texas announced that, using freed education funds, it could now provide health insurance to every child in the state for three-and-a-half years.
Illinois announced that, using freed education funds, it could now provide health care benefits to all citizens below the poverty line, for two years.
North Carolina announced that, using freed education funds, it could now provide all textbooks in all schools in the state for two years.
Colorado announced that, using freed education funds, it could provide books, computers, and other instructional materials for every kindergarten, elementary school, middle school and high school student in the state.
Uncle Sam announced that, using freed education funds, a new computer would be purchased for every middle school student in the United States.
The US literacy rate skyrocketed to near Scandinavian levels.
California, in particular, realized exponential literacy gains, approaching worthiness of its status as one huge Institution of Higher Learning.
Uncle Sam wired a few hundred bucks into the bank account of EVERY single American household.
Emergency rooms operated in the black, and legitimate citizens received quality care.
Product packaging became legible; Americans everywhere were suddenly able to immediately read and understand ingredients, instructions, etc.
Recorded customer service menus became easier and quicker to navigate; in some cases, entire sub-menus were eliminated.
Disneyland ride warning recordings became shorter, and not nearly as fun to imitate.
A palpable reduction in noise pollution (via the thumping "fiesta-polka" music emanating from a perceptibly lower number of clunky pickup trucks and 1980s General Motors vehicles) occurred.
Morning DJs and NPR regained their co-status as the most significant annoyances on FM radio.
The average ground clearance of automobiles increased three-fold.
My Los Angeles-based stepfather made it to work in record time.
Post office lines moved much quicker.
Tijuana "tit mug" sales skyrocketed due to increased competition.
Hollywood, finally tired of rehashing "Blackboard Jungle" for the umpteenth time, officially declared a moratorium, tentatively dubbed "Sit and Quit Delivering."
Hundreds of Minutemen picked up their lawnchairs and went inside.

Clearly, the effect of the illegals' protest was far-reaching and undeniably significant. The presumable point being to “show” your average American bigot just how much impact aliens have on our society, the group has incontrovertibly met its goal. I, and my fellow American bigots, stand humbly corrected.
____________________________
By the way, anything in the above that refers to numbers is based on primary and secondary research, and not just pulled randomly from my bum.

May 03, 2006

Musing: Tyjoesamdan Dd

2006-08-03T15:02:00.000-07:00

A recent email:

--- Ty Dd wrote:

---------------------------------

FROM JOSEPH SAMUEL DANIEL
Global Finance & Securities
Tel: +447031843358
E-mail: jossamd@yahoo.co.uk

Hello dear,

I am Mr.Joseph Samuel of the(GLOBAL TRUST SECURITY & DIPLOMATIC COURIER SERVICES LONDON). I seek your assistance in clearing a Treasure Box containing a sum of Nine Million Five

Hundred United States Dollars($9.5million) which has been
dormant in our vaults in the last four years! ,

The said box was deposited by an Arabic customer who has lost touch with us. Going by the usual statutory rules governing our operation,the box shall be handed over to the relevant

government authorities as an unclaimed deposit within the next three months Details shall be made available to you as soon as I hear from you.

Please call me on my private number: +447031843358, as soon as you receive this mail thank you.

Thanks & God Bless!

Regards,
Mr. Joseph Samuel.
+447031843358

My reply:

Dear Mr. Samuel (Daniel? [Ty? {Dd?}]),

I am interested in this rare opportunity, but I have a few questions, from your email.

First, do you even know your own name? What is your name? You refer to yourself as perversions of three names, depending where it shows up in your message. From your email address(es) and the content of these messages, I am left to assume that your name is something like Ty Joseph Dd Samuel Daniel. Does that sound about right? Aside from Dd, which makes no sense in English (your native tongue), the rest of your "name" is made up entirely of traditional Christian names (Ty, Joseph, Samuel & Daniel). I recommend for your future correspondence to be more consistent with regard to abbreviating your several names to nicknames. Therefore, I propose the following name for your use: Tyjoesamdan Dd. This name is much shorter, and seems to make a little more sense than your current bizarre set of appellations. Let me know what you think.

Second, for whom do you work? I am attempting to gather from your message that it is some combination of Global Finance & Securities & GLOBAL TRUST SECURITY & DIPLOMATIC COURIER SERVICES LONDON. By adding these together, I have come up with this: Global GLOBAL Finance TRUST & SECURITY Securities & & DIPLOMATIC COURIER SERVICES LONDON. Does that sound right? The only other possible combination, in which I apply some conservative combining of similar words and symbols, is "Global Finance, Trust, Securities & Diplomatic Courier Services, (of?) London" or "GFTS&DCSoL." Phonetically, this acronym sounds roughly like "Gifts & DC Soul." Feel free to use this arrangement of the company name for future correspondence.

Third, what sort of Finance, Trust, Securities & Diplomatic Courier Services company allows itself to lose contact with a $9+ million client in a period as short as 4 years? Also, is it standard Gifts & DC Soul policy to turn deposits of such immense monetary value to complete strangers, whose names you do not know, and within only 4 years' time from their deposit by an Arab?

Before I involve myself in this, I am extremely curious to have these questions answered satisfactorily. Also, as an aside, would your employer not allow you to make this official offering through its email servers, as opposed to using a pair of third-party mail providers (MSN & Yahoo!)? I thought about this and hypothesize that tyjosephddsamueldaniel@globalfinancetrustsecuritiesanddiplomaticcourierservicesoflondon.co.uk would be too long of an email address. Is this the case? If so, let me recommend combining my two previous suggestions, to form the following email address: tyjoesamdandd@gftsdcsol.co.uk

Fourth, what is it about me that gives me greater ability to help you "clear" this "Treasure Box" than, say, a neighbor, relative, or countryman? Or simpler still, why can't you simply clear the Treasure Box on your own? Was I recommended to you by a mutual acquaintance? Does my email address possess a unique character that says to the average Global Finance, Trust, Securities & Diplomatic Courier Services, (of?) London employee "We can trust this guy with millions!"?

Finally, what is the actual amount of the funds in question? Your mail contains a discrepancy of $499,500, or more than 5% of the sums mentioned. In one instance, you mention "Nine Million Five Hundred United States Dollars", but follow immediately with a sum nearly a half-million dollars more than the original. Here you call it "$9.5million [sic]" which must refer to this sum: Nine Million Five Hundred Thousand United States Dollars. Considering the vast sums with which we are dealing, I would hope a clarification is not too much to ask of you.

Please respond to me posthaste, and we can begin this transaction in earnest.

Sincerely,

dear

November 01, 2005

Opine: Rebuffing Bonds' Buffness Boors

2006-08-03T15:01:00.000-07:00

Now that the league’s best hitter, Barry Bonds, is back at the plate for these final weeks of the season, I think it’s time for me to comment on him, his records and his embroilment in allegations of steroid use. The most significant reason for my doing this, though, is that there are just too many idiots opining on the subject, and I feel a public responsibility to counteract that as much as possible.

For me, “the Bonds Question” is divided into many parts, including:

1) Has he ever used steroids and if so, a) for how long and b) with what level of culpability? Also, c) what is the evidence of this?

Again, if he has been using steroids,

2) do steroids generally give a demonstrable advantage to a player, and if so, a) how so and b) based on what evidence? c) Has Bonds gained from this advantage and if so, d) to what degree?

3) What, if any, implications does his steroid usage have relating to his numerous (and growing list of) accomplishment and records?

Obviously, the above list does not necessarily cover every angle. However, it represents the first important facets that enter my mind.

So, let’s look at it:

1) Has he ever used steroids?

The answer, in my opinion, is “most likely.” The strongest evidence, as far as I am concerned, is the almost superhuman difference in massiveness between the Bonds of 10 years ago and the Bonds of now. Muscle growth is attributable, and best achieved, through weight training. However, when the basic “template” of one’s body seems to almost mutate over a relatively short period of time, to the degree with which it has occurred with Barry, it is difficult to accept that it has occurred as a sole result of working out.

A counterargument here is that Barry’s age is adding “natural girth” to his frame. As we age, our metabolism slows, and our general youthful slenderness is gradually replaced by fatness in the face and trunk. Looking through any lengthy photo album will attest to this. You get older, you get fatter and appear more doughy.

This argument has some merit; Bonds is 41 years old, after all. It doesn’t, however, explain the abnormal level of growth—and obvious muscularity—of the recent, power-amped Bonds.

Other evidence comes from grand jury testimony of fellow players and other sports professionals. Bonds’ name has been mentioned by numerous individuals as being their inspiration for contacting his alleged drug supplier, including Armando Rios, Benito Santiago, Bobby Estalella and Gary Sheffield.

Some of these players were testifying in exchange for immunity from prosecution, with the knowledge that they were still subject to prosecution for perjury. In other words, they were significantly discouraged from giving anything but completely true information. As long as what they said was true, they would have nothing to worry about. The likelihood that they would give “false positives” at the risk of perjuring themselves is virtually nil.

Still, their collective testimony really only served to cast a dark, indistinct shadow over Bonds. None of the grand jury witnesses were able to claim that they ever knowingly used steroids with—or at the recommendation of—Bonds. None of them had ever seen Bonds shoot up, or engage in any other activity that would reasonably appear to be using steroids.

Bonds, himself said that he used external applications given to him by a close friend, that he claimed he understood to be flaxseed oil, or some other supposedly legal substance, to help him deal with pain associated with chronic arthritis. The speculation is that the supplier of this ointment would fill containers labeled “flaxseed oil” with one or more of topical steroids known informally as “the clear” and “the cream.”

A few of the players offering grand jury testimony claimed to have sought out the purported steroid supplier due to his association with Bonds. The implication here is that these players wanted “some of whatever you’ve been giving him.” After all, Bonds was a baseball god. As far as “grand jury” evidence goes, I believe that I have mentioned the most damning of what was “leaked” from the testimony last year. At the very least, I am certain that any number of the anti-Bonds types would have uncovered and exploited any more alarming evidence if there were any.

The informal evidence is much more serious in its implications. However, I consider this evidence to be credible in inverse proportion to the significance of its allegations. From among a group including names like Jason Giambi, Mark McGwire, Jose Canseco and Gary Sheffield, has sprouted claims to having seen Bonds inject himself, and/or having injected Bonds with steroids, and/or having been referred to a supplier of steroids by Bonds.

The only credible whistle-blowers in this group are Jason Giambi and Gary Sheffield, both of whom still play significant parts in their teams’ offensive production. The others, as far as I am aware, no longer play professional sports. Making admissions of the sort mentioned above would be much more dangerous to a current, successful major-leaguer, than to a has-been like Jose Canseco.

To summarize: the evidence, as I have experienced it, is essentially Bonds’ rapid and abnormal growth, grand jury testimony and informal accusations.

My conclusion is that Bonds probably has used steroids, perhaps beginning around the end of the 20^th century, and continuing until formal testing by MLB began. If he has used steroids, I sincerely doubt that has not been aware of it.

I can imagine a situation wherein Bonds instructed a trusted physical trainer to “take good care” of him, and “do what you think is best for my success,” or following another similar line, the intent being to affect a “don’t ask, don’t tell” pseudo-indemnity. In such a situation, Bonds could honestly testify to not realizing that he was ingesting or otherwise making use of steroids. My guess is that most professional athletes who use steroids adopt a similar policy; they basically pay a guy handsomely to be the scapegoat in case of discovery.

Unfortunately, unless and until Bonds tests positive for any banned substances, none of the evidence will constitute proof. This fact is most significant in my opinions on how any available information should be applied to the current situation.

2) How, if at all do steroids affect a player’s performance?

In my opinion, not only is there no solid evidence that steroids do anything to improve eyesight, hand-eye coordination or the ability to turn experience into instinct, there is probably far more tangible evidence of steroids’ adverse side-effects. To me, the numbers, along with common sense, demonstrate that steroids cannot possibly affect the fundamental aspects of an all-star’s game. They are all about mass, and strength.

A really strong guy can “miss” a pitch, but still hit it out for sheer muscle. However, the strongest outfielder in the world has no more intrinsic ability to time a pitch perfectly (if he can even recognize it as a good pitch) than the scrawniest little speedster short stop.

What we know steroids might do is help a mediocre hitter swing at the wrong pitches even harder than before. It also follows that they might also help good hitters swing at the right pitches even harder. However, the known evidence indicates that a legendary specimen of an athlete is neither made, nor significantly improved, by steroids.

For example, one of the players to admit to using steroids is former Giants catcher, Bobby Estalella, whose intimidating stature from day one in the major leagues, has left little to the imagination. He’s also a perfect example of what my imagination conjures as the personification of the effects of steroids on gameplay. He has always, throughout his entire career, be one of those strong, powerful, but highly susceptible to strikeouts types of players. It is in such a player that steroids appear to be able to give the most notable edge.

Take the raw strength and power out of the equation, and perhaps Estalella flounders somewhere in the rookie leagues, if that. He represents what logic tells me is the clearest idea of how steroids can apparently improve one’s ability to perform as a major leaguer.

In Bonds’ case, specifically, his home runs are typically crushed—they're line-drives. This means he is putting the right part of the bat on the ball, and timing his swing to drive the ball as efficiently as possible, irrespective of how HARD it can be hit. Steroids, in my opinion, would mean the difference between a towering fly ball, and one that clears the fence. But to hit the ball squarely and consistently is another ballgame (heh) entirely.

The numbers game
In support of the argument that steroids offer little, if any performance enhancement, are his numbers of 12 years ago, at the beginning of his tenure with the Giants. His 1993 numbers are arguably superior to those of his most recent 5 seasons, except for 2001, during which he hit his record 73 homers.

One of Skinny Barry's Big Years:
1993: .336 BA, 46 HR, 123 RBI

Beefed-up Barry's Big Years:

2000: .306 BA, 49 HR, 110 RBI
2001: .328 BA, 73 HR 137 RBI
2002: .370 BA, 46 HR, 110 RBI
2003: .341 BA, 45 HR, 90 RBI
2004: .362 BA, 45 HR, 101 RBI

Bonds' 1993 output in the most important (in my opinion) production statistic, RBI (runs batted in), was better than all but one of the past 5 "huge" seasons. He hit for a higher average in 1993 than during the best year of his career (2001), during which he hit his record 73 home runs, and drove in a career-best 137. He also stole more than twice as many bases in 1993 as he did during each of the past five years.

Whether or not one agrees that 1993 was a more successful season than some of these recent years, it is difficult to argue that he was not producing comparable stats long before he became the physical specimen he has been for the past few years. What this irrefutably shows, in my opinion, is that the pre-physical-manifestation-of-steroid-use Barry was a stupendously productive hitter, and comparable to his now monstrous-looking self.

Last year he hit 45 home runs and drove in 101 in just 373 at-bats. To put this into perspective, the last time he had as few at-bats was in 1999, during which he missed one-third of the season. Your average major leaguer can expect to end up with 530-600 at-bats per season. Why did Bonds, who played in a team-high 147 games last year, end up with just the 373? He walked 232 times! 232! The next-best in the league for the year was 127 walks. No steroids involved here.

In a league where drawing more than 100 walks is exceptional, Bonds took 105 more bases on balls than the next best player. But he struck out a mere 41 times. Steroids schmeroids. It’s considered admirable to walk as often as one strikes out. Bonds struck out once per nearly six walks. By far the most incredible accomplishment among this remarkable set of wonders is Bonds’ hitting home runs more often than he struck out in 2004.

What people have missed—and will continue to so do indefinitely—is that Barry Bonds is an incredible hitter, whose constant dedication to improvement has paid dividends that are almost unbelievable to behold. Starting in the middle of 2001, Bonds has been forced to watch for literally one—possibly two—hittable pitch(es) per game. His discipline is unprecedented; he has been drawing 4 or 5 walks for every time he has struck out.

To watch Barry hit is to watch a master in his element. His machine-like accuracy seems like an optical illusion. Most hitters either play something of a guessing game against a pitcher—watching for the pitcher’s best pitch but being prepared to swing at a hitter’s pitch—or are fortunate enough to be able to recognize a pitch’s speed or location before it hits the catcher’s glove. Barry Bonds recognizes the type of pitch—its location, its trajectory, its rotation, its velocity (and who knows what else)—and decides how to adjust his swing, all within nanoseconds of the pitcher’s release of the ball.

If you watch him carefully, you can actually see his face reflecting his decision about a pitch as it comes in. Periodically, a borderline pitch will be called a strike, when Bonds knew it would be a ball before the umpire even thought about what to call. In most such instances, Bonds will shake his head briefly and respectfully, and be ready for the next pitch. In some of these instances, he will quickly ask the umpire “where” the pitch was, to be called a strike, and then will nod his head, as if to say “ok, I read you. Next time I will have to foul that pitch off.”

In much rarer situations, he will take a strike and nod his head, indicating to the (unsuspecting) pitcher, “OK, I know about that pitch now. It had been the only one from your repertoire that you could throw past me for a strike. It had been, before the moment I watched it fly past my knees. Next time you throw it, I am depositing it in the right field upper-deck.”

You can observe him doing these things, by watching his body language. When he looks to the sky and sort of rolls his eyes, he is disappointed in himself; this is very rare. When he shakes his head or otherwise seems to grimace, it usually indicates his dissatisfaction with the mere mortal behind the catcher, who has blown a call.

If you get a chance, watch one of his home runs on Sportscenter one night; he has been hitting them almost every game recently—it shouldn’t be hard to catch. More often than not, it appears that he literally has been told by some clairvoyant (a little elf?) what the pitcher is thinking and where the pitch will be, and at what velocity. You watch. Before the pitch comes, concoct a little imaginary dialogue between the pitcher and Bonds. Here’s how it roughly should go:

Pitcher: “Hey Barry, I am going to throw a hanging curve that should hit about 80 miles per hour. It should cross the plate at the height of your belt. You ready?”

Bonds: “Yep.”

Now, watch the pitch come in. He hits it as if the conversation above actually took place, doesn’t he? It is eerie, huh?

3) How should the above affect his records and status in baseball history?

The answer to this is surprisingly easy for me. If no further evidence ever surfaces, nothing about his accomplishments should be discounted or otherwise gainsaid. If, however, he ever admits to using steroids and offers details, or he fails an official MLB drug test, it can be only an all-or-nothing proposition.

If he’s a known cheater, all of his baseball activities must be called into question. Since there is no reliable way to determine how drugs have factored into his performance, there is no legitimate way to specifically address accomplishments like home run records. The only credible solution would be to asterisk his entire career with the mention of his known steroid use. It should be a “cheater” blight—an indelible mark on his legacy.

It would be inappropriate to attempt to rewrite history by removing his name from official records, or stripping him of awards. What has occurred has occurred, and cannot be changed. If his steroid use is ever proved, however, his name can and should be held in disgrace for as long as it is remembered. As is the custom in America, the speculation will continue forever. How many of his records were steroid-induced? For how long were his records bolstered by using banned substances? Does he deserve any acclaim for what he did accomplish?

Since this is not a situation like that of Canadian Ben Johnson’s gold medal sprinting, in which the steroid testing was timely in such a way that it was possible to point directly to a specific athletic feat, it cannot be addressed as it was during those summer Olympics. On the contrary, very little tangible can be done to address the infraction.

As far as my own feeling about Bonds, if definitive proof eventually surfaces, I will probably mentally discredit his accomplishments. In my experience, one can feel confident that “where there's smoke, there's fire.” I would have no choice but to assume that whatever is proven is just the tip of the iceberg, and that Bonds is a cheater—true blue. Cheating should delegitimize any victory. In my book, if his cheating is ever proven, my memories of his incredible offensive mastery will never die, but my esteem of him as one of the best players to ever don a uniform will take a serious hit.

Has Bonds used steroids? Probably. Has it been proven? Nope. Can it be proven? Probably not. Do steroids turn mediocre players into superstars? Nuh-uh. Can they help an established talent? Maybe. Should Bonds be punished at this point? Nope. If it ever is proven, should he be punished? Yes, but not at the expense of history.

September 21, 2005

Opine: I Hate Myself And I Want To Die

2006-08-03T15:00:00.000-07:00

A popular posture among international white people is that of self-loathing. We've got a few levels of this, from white males' hatred of white males to a general dislike for humankind. I want to make a few comments on the latter level.

I touched on my opinions a long time ago here in my Xanga, in an essay about a guy saving a seal from its natural predator. As I said before, the basic problem with people claiming that mankind is inordinately prone to destruction, is that mankind is the only earthly creature capable of both understanding and creating morality. Due to what Darwin called "natural selection" (I think he coined the phrase, anyway), all animals are naturally prone toward absolute self-indulgence (only perceptible from our human perspective). No animal intentionally does anything other than what will lead to its best chance at self-preservation and, if possible, prosperity. We might encounter the scattered apparent exception to this rule, but I believe that even these can be chalked up to the "intention" of the animal. In other words, wherever an animal seems to be acting in an altruistic manner, it is only the result of its instinctive estimation that it will provide the best result for itself.

For example, hunting, or otherwise living, as a part of a pack, has nothing to do with some noble tendency toward selflessness, or an innate need to share; on the contrary, such creatures' intentions are based entirely on their self-preservation instinct. It also appears that, where creatures appear to sacrifice themselves for their offspring, for example, the sacrificers are still acting on their "intent" at self-preservation, but on what generations of instinctive wiring has hinted will perpetuate their own seed.

Just as an insane Muslim might don and detonate a bomb for what appears to be sacrificial reasons, the reality is that he expects what generations of indoctrination have taught him is a greater reward for himself. His hedonistic motives revolve around having lots of sex with lots of virgins in a perfect afterlife. How we perceive the individual reward--or lack thereof--has little to do with the fact that the Islamic guy/creature does what it understands to be of greatest worth to itself.

Dolphins don't engage in "homosexual" activities because some are born gay. They simply like how their genitals feel when they use them, and in the absence of any moral fabric, are subject to no motive other than self-gratification. For the same reason, we've been forced to endure the same mammal-(usually dog)-humping-someone's-leg shtick in one of every three comedies released in US theaters.

As it turns out, humans are the only of earth's inhabitants that have the capacity to make unselfish determinations, and to act contrarily to their animal wonts. Such "instincts" must be tempered continually, as we fight the animal inclinations toward sexual, recreational, dietary and other appetites. Our minds own the unique ability to decide.

As the be-all, end-all of the food chain, our immense mental capacity has given rise to the ability to make efficient and generous use of our habitat: namely, almost the entire earth. We are the only member of the world community that can exercise discretion.

A hungry she-lion doesn't worry about whether or not the injured Gazelle in its jaws is suffering as it waits to suffocate and die. My little kitty, Halli, is far less merciful toward the mouse or mole that ends up on our back porch, than we wish she would be toward it.

She'll drop a healthy, extremely lively little creature on the concrete, and bat it around like a rag doll, as the poor little rodent slowly loses its grip on vitality. The struggling animal will lie on its side, breathing rapidly, but without the strength to move. Following a laborious and temporary recovery period, it will make a feeble attempt to escape, its sudden movements triggering Halli's need to toy with the animal still further. She knocks it about repeatedly as it squeals in apparent pain, rolling almost lifelessly along the patio. Then, following fifteen to sixty minutes of labored breath, the little being finally makes its last gasp. Halli, now uninterested, leaves it there for the scavenging insects to desecrate.

I understand somewhat the impetus of those who proclaim a hatred for their own species. As reasoning, and feeling, creatures, they are overcome by a need to assign blame for the cruelty that seems to permeate our world. Since no animal, regardless of its ferocity (of course, any attack upon a human by an animal cannot be the animal's fault), has ever voiced the equivalent of its life philosophy, no animal can be held responsible for anything, ever. Since no animal can ever be responsible for anything, the only remaining forces are those of "Mother Nature" and humanity. With a similar lack of voice, nature is also blameless, leaving only humans. We are the culprits, and we are the evil.

My sincere wish is for people with these, and similar, views to walk their walk. If you consider yourself to be the problem, by all means eliminate the problem. Otherwise, get yourself some better material.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

P.S. Happy anniversary to Ed and his wife (seven years).

August 22, 2005

Musing: The Incident

2006-08-03T14:58:00.000-07:00

Someone remind me to laud the film The Incident (1967) for its (perhaps unintentional) indictment of apologism and appeasement, and its analogy--almost microcosmic--to current and recurrent policy philosophies. The gist is "if you sit around waiting for someone to do something to thwart the enemy, or--even worse--you make a serious effort to "understand" and even "empathize" with them--be prepared to accept the consequences."

I wonder if Martin Sheen realized what he was getting into when he basically signed on to play himself (the cowardly loudmouth enemy of civilization and puppet of anti-America) early in his career.

July 26, 2005

[ed: I recently learned of Sheen's subsrcption to the Consistent Life ethic, which adds some measure of respect that I didn't have when I wrote the above. I comment elsewhere on it--search for it]

Opine: Kenny Rogers

2006-08-03T14:56:00.000-07:00

If you're unfamiliar with the case, a pitcher in the major leagues named Kenny Rogers (yep) got himself into some trouble awhile back when he shoved and otherwise scuffled with a cameraman or two, and even kicked one of the cameras while it was down. Footage, from several angles, has clogged up the TV screens, and has shaped the thoughts and words of sports TV opiners for weeks. Among the first practical applications of the incident's backlash came when Rogers immediately appealed a 20 game suspension handed him by the league.

Appealing a suspension is commonplace, although typically with the intent of shortening or possibly eliminating the punishment. So on the surface, it didn't seem out-of-place or inappropriate. However, it turns out that his suspension, if served out when initially handed-down, would have excluded him from the midseason All-Star game, in which he had been invited to participate. Due to the indisputable evidence from multiple cameras on the scene of the assaults, this is clearly not a case where Rogers is trying to seriously demand a reduced sentence, or complete "acquittal." In my opinion, he showed extremely poor taste, and a disrespect for the game itself, and its fans, by choosing to use his right to appeal to sneak in through the back door of that time-honored celebration of MLB's most deserving athletes.

He was, thankfully, addressed with resounding boos upon being introduced as a team member, by vocal fans, with similar perspectives to mine. He was also booed upon entering the actual game to pitch, where karma also seemed poised to add its gremlins to the mix of the situation. The opposing side (National League) had been stifled by outstanding American League pitching, unable to score during the game's first six innings, the NL awoke at Rogers' appearance and touched him up for two runs, in his only inning of work. His performance proved to be the worst among ANY of the pitchers, including those who had already allowed his team to build up a hefty 7-run lead. He had, arguably, the worst performance of ANY player among the 58 participants. Karma's some sort of bitch, ain't she.
However, my beef is with comments that probably reflect a larger sentiment among sports commentators, made by Jeff Brantley, himself a former pitcher and teammate of Rogers' (I think), and presumably, a buddy. He essentially has excused him, and his behavior, while criticizing his "treatment" upon being booked. Apparently, at his arraignment, Rogers was met by cameras, behind which stood reporters looking for comments on the situation. Brantley made a comment to the effect that "Kenny made a mistake, has taken responsibility for his regrettable actions, and doesn't need to be continually scrutinized by the media. People need to let this go now. It is a private matter of a private citizen . . ."

The problem, as I see it, is that Rogers chose to publicly throw a tantrum that amounted to physically assaulting a man and some valuable private property. He caused minor injuries to the guy, and damaged his equipment right in the middle of his work day; of course this is a public situation.

In Kenny Rogers' case, his tantrum actually occurred during one of these "agreed upon" paid-for events; he was at work. Hey Kenny, I, and others like me, have paid to make you famous. Now that this fame has gone to your head and "forced" you into beating on some cameraman at work, your fame has not been automatically revoked. Sorry.

This seems conspicuously like media conglomerates trying to prevent people from choosing their means of enjoying purchased entertainment, using copy protection schemes, etc. We are expected to pay $12-18 for a CD, but can only enjoy it on THEIR terms, which is ridiculous.

Hey famous people whose lives are made courtesy of public consumer pocketbooks, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You are wholly dependent upon me and my peers for your livelihood; when you WANT our attention, we are "allowed" to give it. However, when you don't, we are expected to go hump ourselves. Sorry, but no.

July 19, 2005

Mundane: Anatomy of a Deception (Audible-style)

2006-08-03T14:55:00.000-07:00

Background:
I recently signed up for a trial with Audible, portable audiobook purveyors, mostly out of curiousity with their service, but conveniently as a requirement to help me earn a free mp3 player.

A few days later I realized they were trying to shake me down for almost 10 x as much money as they originally quoted. I tried to cancel, but was told I would be charged the higher amount whether I cancelled now, or later.

As you read this, please realize that I am aware of the technical obligation I appear to be under. However, I am looking more at the intended effect by Audible, and their clear attempt to dupe people into plunking $25 onto the table for a $3 trial.

Now here's my case:

Step 1: The Bait

Here we see the ad itself, as displayed in the offers section of MP3Players4Free.com.

In case it is difficult to read, the fancy, colorful part reads like this:

Two audiobooks for $2.99

The ad â€œcopyâ€ reads this way:

"Listen to two audiobooks when you try a month of AudibleÂ® for just $2.99. Choose from over [sic] 25,000 digital audiobooks! Listen using your AppleÂ® iPodÂ®, AudibleReadyÂ® MP3 player, computer, or CDs you burn yourself."

Notice the words â€œwhen you try a month of Audible for just $2.99â€

Step 2: The sneaking switch:

Here we have the first page with which one is presented when he clicks through from the ad featured above. Notice the prominence of the â€œ$2.99â€ price in reddish lettering. Below and to the left of the heading we find some descriptive text at roughly 1/3 the size of the $2.99 and in nondescript black print. Here we read this ambiguous copy:

"AudibleListener is a monthly listening program for people who love to hear great audio at a great price. PremiumListener provides members with two audiobooks each month for just $21.95 a [sic] month. Members can choose any audiobook that Audible carries, regardless of price, and still pay one low monthly fee for their selections."

In these words, we find our first mention of a new dollar amount: $21.95. Really forthright on the part of our Audible pals, right? Well, letâ€™s have a look. The paragraph features the first mention of what appears to be two products or services (a party unfamiliar with Audible would have no way of knowing at this point). Unfortunately, this paragraph neither expressly informs the reader about that to which he is about to commit, nor does it make any attempt to attach the $21.95 payment to this process. Sure, the number is there, and with a dollar sign, but with no wording to even suggest something like â€œas a PremiumListenerâ€ or â€œas an AudibleListenerâ€. It reads like an ad for a completely separate offering from Audible. At this point, there is no reasonable justification for the reader to assume it will somehow affect the offer for which he chose to follow the link. Namely, the ad that makes this offer: â€œTwo audiobooks for $2.99â€.

However, there is a single legitimate, albeit not necessarily clear, mention of a $21.95 charge being required. In lettering measuring approximately Â¼ the size of the $2.99 in reddish lettering above, and hiding snugly beneath the ambiguous paragraph aforementioned, we find these words:

Two-month AudibleListener membership required. Your second month will be billed at $21.95. You may cancel at any time after your second month.

Considering its position immediately beneath an apparent sidebar promoting two apparent products or services (PremiumListener & AudibleListener), one might easily make the determination that Audible is including this note to essentially prepare the reader for a payment requirement, should he choose to take advantage of either of these apparent products or services. In one readerâ€™s case, he felt no need to add anything to the inviting promise of â€œTwo audiobooks for $2.99â€.

Lest you get antsy for the remaining elements of this escapadeâ€”perhaps pining for the real meatâ€”that point at which the folks at Audible finally actually expressly confirm that anything other than â€œTwo audiobooks for $2.99â€ is involved in this transaction, I reluctantly admit that there is nothing more to which you can look forward. That was it.

Step 4: Buffer #1:

Here we find the innocuous â€œhey, time to choose your fun Audible usernameâ€ portion of the scheme. One might choose to look at this as the first buffer against the meager mentions of $21.95 on the previous page.

Step 5: Buffer #2

Here we have one of the few places online where a business has opted to request credit card information outside the company of any order summary, billing agreement or confirmation of acceptance of anything. Itâ€™s basically a page that asks â€œcan I have your credit card information please?â€

Once again, notice the conspicuous absence of a mention of any charge, let alone one for $21.95.

Step 6: My Weak Link (dammit!)

Confirmation of things, including (one must assume) some agreement to pay some dollar amount at some point. I admit freely that this really weakens my â€œdeceptionâ€ case, since herein one might have found the first (and only) clear declaration of what charges would be expected of the party registering with Audible. If it seems â€œconveniently peculiarâ€ that I have no screen shot available of this presumed next step, it is only because I had no reason to foresee a need to capture any of these screens, apart from the actual order confirmation.

It was, unfortunately, following three emails with Audibleâ€™s customer support that I knew I had been taken in by deception. The screen shots above were, necessarily, taken this morningâ€”several days following signup. The only way I could have gained access to the screens between Buffer #2 and my confirmation was to resubmit valid credit card information; we all know where that got me before.

Step 8?: Confirmation

It is here that it finally becomes clear that I have â€œjoinedâ€ AudibleListener, also apparently confirming that I have become a member of somethingâ€”a club, perhaps? However, the screen still makes no mention of PremiumListener, with which the $21.95 was attached in the text from Step 2.

Step 9?: How Do I Cancel, If I Ultimately So Choose

Yet another point at which I am unable to provide a screen shot. The option to â€œcancelâ€ my Audible account mysteriously disappeared from my account page, sometime between June 6 and June 11, 2005. However, on or before the 6th, I inquired into my ability to cancel, at which point I first realized Audible intended to charge another $21.95, in addition to the $2.95. Following the aforementioned contact with Audible support, I returned this morning to reread the cancellation terms, only to find the link had disappeared. It still displays in the Help section that describes the cancellation process. It is supposed to be there, but it is nowhere to be seen (or captured on screen, to be displayed herein).

Step 10: Complete billing history

Here we can confirm that I was billed $2.99 on June 4, 2005. No further charges are mentioned or displayed. Clicking on the order number link, we are directed to the subject of step 11:

Step 11: The real stinger (aka. I win, you lose)

In this shot we can clearly see the contents of the order, the particular charge being given the following name:

AudibleListener Premium 2.99 Trial

You read that correctly. After all has been said, but very little done, by Audible, what remains is something quite telling. Even they have no idea what they're selling. Yet another product or service jumps into our working lexicon: AudibleListener Premium. So at this point, it appears that I may or may not be in a club called AudibleListener, which may or may not have some affiliation with something called PremiumListener, which may or may not have something to do with $21.95, which may or may not be about as arbitrary as a strobe-lit epileptic with a tommy gun. I hope you get the picture.

June 11, 2005

[ed: If I find the time, I'll look for the original screenshots--I'm sure the demand will be high]

Musing: Milloinaire Infomercial

2006-08-03T14:54:00.000-07:00

When those millionaire guys on infomercials say "If I could do it, so could you" it's the same as telling some guy at the roulette table, "Put everything on 26. It worked for me!"

June 09, 2005

Musing: You've Got Nailed

2006-08-03T14:52:00.000-07:00

Time to use my forum as a semi-official record of my recent AOL experience, so when July 3 rolls around, I will be able to keep track of stuff.

Today I spoke with a fine young Indian named Victor, who eventually gave me the following cancellation confirmation number: 0171098982. The "legal disclaimer" (AOL talk for "one last attempt to keep your business") repeated this number, and informed me that I would receive a confirmation via US mail within 14 days.

This was my second such experience with AOL in the past few months; the first AOL cancellation came after I used a free trial long enough to find sign up for a cheap ISP. At that time, I enjoyed a protracted conversation with a fine young Indian gal named Rashashasha (or Paula or Ravi or Chim-Chim).

Anyway, I thought it would interest someone, somewhere, to hear some of what I was fed while on the line with Victor. I lost count of the number of "exchanges" between us, but I am certain they were at least eight in number. The simplified version of every one of these (except the last):

Ed: I would like to cancel AOL.
Vic: I see. I will not cancel your account. How about if you don't cancel, instead.
Ed: I would like to cancel AOL.

Now for some of what he offered up:

"Your broadband provider will give you 30% off of your monthly bill if you use AOL for broadband, because they use a local security and ours is McAfee and approved by the Cyber Security Council. Just call them and tell them about AOL and ask about their security and they will give you 30% off."

"12 million people use AOL for broadband."

"If you just read an email I will send you, I guarantee you will want to continue using AOL."

"AOL takes full responisbility your your security--and not just for your internet security. We make sure your system is optimized for top performance and prevent spywares and hackers and everything bad."

"If you cancel now, you will waste a whole month of free AOL."

"It costs AOL about $40 for each free trial they give out. You are being selfish by trying to cancel."

"(Several variations on) OK, we understand your desire to cancel. Just call us before July 3 and we will cancel you."

"You are worried that calling back is a hassle, so let me give you my personal line to call back whenever you want. (I became weak and paused longer than I should've, after which I asked him to verify that it is his personal line, and asked him for it) OK, the direct number to our department is 1-888-265-8008."

Anyway, my responses among each of these were almost all the same, consisting of some variation of "I have heard your words, and now would like for you to please cancel my AOL account immediately. Thank you."

By the 2nd or 3rd to last exchange, my response had become "Victor, please understand that while I have been patiently and politely listening to each of your answers to my repeated request to cancel, and I am to the point where I consider your ingnoring my request to be extremely disprespectful. You are essentially ignoring everything I say, which is extremely impolite and inconsiderate."

I believe that our conversation made its final gasps after he dropped a classic "when did you stop beating your wife" question:

"Don't you think that having a really good broadband companion that protects your computer, improves its performance and increases functionality for free for a whole month would be a good thing?"

My reply: "No."

It sucks that it was ultimately two little letters that disarmed my poor friend. I should've just grunted for 25 minutes until he gave up. I guess I am just too damned civilized for AOL.

June 04, 2005

Musing: The Scary Microsoft Commercial Guy

2006-08-03T14:51:00.000-07:00

I really find it hard to resist the temptation to find out about the guy on the recent Microsoft commercial where he talks about his grandson liking astronomy, and go kill him. I mostly want to do this because he is one of the ugliest people I have ever seen. It wouldn't bug me so much if he were a bum on the street, or some other urchin, but he was paid by Microsoft to promote their product on TV. He has this HUGE, freaky grin that is equal parts sinister and pig-ass ugly, and his face is covered with moles and weird freckle stuff, and his eyebrows make the shrubs resting atop my peepers look like supermodel pencil-drawn ones.

Then there's his voice. I don't know his real voice, and I can't quite decide how he was able to get any words past his huge, tooth-fused smile during the ad, but he did. The problem was, he was using this nasty kind of whispery, breathy voice that is kinda nice when a woman with a nice set of pipes uses it on a radio spot, or even when someone like Vincent Price does it. But just the thought that this guy is using a type of voice that has been known to help soothe my mind--that drove me nuts. Plus, he could barely speak clear English. He mumbled all his words through the microscopic cracks between his teeth, with that repulsive frozen visage, in some weird Newfoundland (Newfy)/Austrian/Pakistani accent.

So anyway, don't ever tell me anything about the guy that could help me find him, and I trust you not to kill him ever, considering that this entry could be integral to proving a motive for his murder, were you to try and pin it on me.

May 15, 2005

Opine: Supersize My Weiner, Please

2006-08-03T14:50:00.000-07:00

"The Obesity Epidemic"

What in the holy fricking hell is that? Whose epidemic are we referring to? A recent story featured on Yahoo! tells us that California has recently been praised by some do-gooder retarded lame-o evaluation by some east coast entity. The primary criterion for praiseworthiness?:

The volume of bureaucracy involved.

California received the only "A" grade from the University of Baltimore (who?) because the state "proposed or enacted legislation to address obesity" at a rate significantly higher than that of its 49 siblings.

Considering that the only thing longer than California's Pacific coastline is its stream of red tape, that is hardly surprising.

Per the status quo, we’re once more compared to "European nations" whose obesity rate is significantly less, as though it were some valuable point of relevant reference. If Californianlike Americans spent even half the time learning to fulfill themselves that they currently spend shuffling clumsily to be perceived as oh-so-Europeanesque, headlines like this wouldn't even exist.

Oh crap! We’re not like Europe. Oh crap! What’ll we do!

So Europeans are skinnier than Americans. Guess what; they're also stuffier, government-dependenter, poorer, intoleranter and generally unhappier. In fact, Europe represents quite poignantly why America’s forbears charted westward over the Atlantic in the first place. But most emblematic is the incalculable difference when it comes to national sovereignty. While Europe seems to be content to melt its collective soul into the lowest-common-denominator of its many nations, the United States of America have--at least historically--maintained their policy of conscientious sovereignty. Despite continued attacks by the likes of entities that, with tongue nowhere near cheek, criticize an aspect of our national identity by comparing it to Europe, our nation still enjoys a strong level of independence from the likelihood of slouching toward some Hollywoodean global village.

America built itself upon the bones and entrails of such townships’ citizenry, expatriates themselves of this lowest-common-globometer village. We can be criticized for many, many despicable acts and policies, and appropriately so, but unless our country sadly succumbs to all the toothless second-cousins-twice-removed calling us callous and selfish, we will most proudly brandish the banner of independent and manmade achievement. It is this achievement—not our myriad past atrocities against others (hell, the USA is downright angelic compared to some of our most “progressive” European cousins [err . . England, Spain, Germany, Italy])—that still sits at the core of International resentment. Unless and until a collective guilt-complex drives the non-costal (95% of the) United States into the mud hovels of some global village, we will earn no fate other than one of perpetual criticism from outside the confines of our treasured sovereignty. I say bring it on, forever.

Among the amusements to be drawn from this story, and its underlying movement, is the fact that these people are more concerned about the volume of polyunsaturated fats in our bodies, and seek greater control over their likes, than they care for say, unborn humans, for example. Hell, when it comes to an actual person clinging desperately to its only real means of survival and progression toward absolute independence, such entities as the University of Baltimore couldn’t care less. It is, of course, none of their business. Now, the number of net carbs being put inside the same body--yeah, that is their problem, and they must put a stop to it. So of the denizens of our two "we know more about what's best for you than you do” coasts, it can safely be said: "Snicker bars are for more important to the national wellbeing than little babies."

1984 . . Pounds

To its credit, sort of, the state of Maryland, through Health Secretary Anthony McCann “compared obesity to the battle against AIDS.” From this comparison, it appears safe to assume that the appropriate government intervention process will include a propaganda campaign about the special asset to our society that are our nations fat-asses, and how they cannot help their inclinations toward cramming sickeningly gargantuan portions of lard and sugar water down their gullets. It would necessarily follow that we cannot expect them to actually make any attempts to change their lifestyle. Instead, the government will begin issuing free “morning-after” ipecacs, with the caveat “there is no such thing as safe binging”—but since it would be absolutely heartless and improper to expect the non-total-blobs-of-human-gelatin-balls-challenged among us to curb our appetites, none of us will be truly expected to change anything.

I can just see it: Among the first official actions arising from new legislation is an amendment to “hate crime” statutes, making it a felony to call someone “chunk” or “blubber-butt,” and turning such assaults as “cheek squeezing” and “Pillsbury Dough Boy poking” into capital offenses.

In the military, a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is officially adopted, whereby it becomes illegal to discriminate against someone based on their apparent girth. Scales and fat-calipers are confiscated from recruitment offices and basic training camps, and it is officially assumed that all members of the military are “roughly 5’11” and 180 pounds” unless otherwise informed by consent of the individual. The policy basically demands that no matter how monstrously overweight they seem to be, even to the point of flamboyant fatness, it is unacceptable to assume anything about them. Their fitness to serve alongside you and your regiment, or to physically keep up with you and your men, is both irrelevant, and impossible to discern.

The guy who did the “Super-Size Me” movie is arrested and banished to an undisclosed locale, somewhere near Paris, for his insensitive, “massist” perspective, and he slowly gathers a contingent of similar-minded hate-mongers. He co-founds the thin-supremacist group dubbed by the media “skinandbonesheads”, quietly assembling an arsenal of pastries and pies, to be used as biological weapons against their enemies across the ocean.

Jonathan Demme makes a movie about the plight of our heftier humans. It stars Camryn “steamroller” Manheim as an upstart Hollywood assistant director whose “differentness” becomes an increasingly significant deterrent to her being given the chance to become the director she knows she can be. She hires a REALLY skinny vegetarian anti-discrimination lawyer who is scared of fat people because she’s afraid they might try and eat her, and things slowly evolve.

Her vegattorney slowly begins to realize that huge ass people are people too, which realization comes to a climax as Manheim’s character performs an impromptu line-dance to “Achy Breaky Heart” in the living/dining/bedroom of her basement apartment. Of course, the tragedy is that our heroine dies of a heart-attack at the end of the movie, but I think we will have all learned something by then. And I don’t really think that something needs to be named. Do you?

Epilogue:

Yeah, this thing went somewhere other than where I intended for it to go. I was gonna talk about how much it bugs me that other people—particularly really really stupid people, like those living in the Hollywood region of our nation—are doing their best to control what I put into my mouth. It bothers folks enough that marijuana is illegal, for instance. But this well-greased downhill speedway will have as its next victims beef steak, fries and milkshakes, if we don’t make proper use of the pruning shears that are our voting booths.

May 05, 2005

Musing: Mark Prior

2006-08-03T14:47:00.000-07:00

Wow, ya'll are missing out on some real brilliance. Oh well.

Today's entree is a quote from Chicago Cubs' pitching ace, Mark Prior, who commented, regarding today's 10-6 victory over the Cincinnati Reds, "I felt probably the best I've felt.''

Sometimes I wonder why MLB guys don't become lawyers or PR spokesmen. Here's something from Ken "I used to be good when I was, like, 5" Griffey: I'm trying to be patient if possible, go out there and play as I can and see what happens."

Oh yeah, and I hereby stake my claim to giving infinity percent at everything I do. The highest I have ever heard someone else claim was around 1,000 percent. That's much lower than infinity.

April 25, 2005

Opine: The Snack Cracker Blues

2006-08-03T14:42:00.000-07:00

The leftist panhandling campaign to rile me most recently is "the Arts in Schools" (socialist-speak for "more condom & banana money") one, being led publicly by Americans for the Arts (funny—I am all of the above, but somehow feel little camaraderie with them) with the good ol’ Ad Council. What strikes me, perhaps even more than the fact that the government's repulsive sponsorship of arbitrary "art" is expected to make its way into schools, is the absolutely anemic "case" being made—this bleeding-heart call to action. And since they're considered PSAs, the media are required to treat the ads differently—usually offering the space/time gratis.

Let me mention that there might well be valid reasons for promoting the arts in schools. I’m certainly open to the idea. Unfortunately, I’ve never seen one—at least not in the promotional items I’ve seen. I know that there are “studies” linking the arts with academic and social achievement, but the concepts involved are far too subjective to be of any empirical value.

Even if the terms were nailed down so distinctly as to allow for a number of hours exposed in a particular way to particular form of art as defined by a particular person (which so far does not appear to be the case), you might get my attention, but I’d be acutely suspicious of the significant role played by self-fulfilling prophecy. Socialize any kid—expose him systematically to anything fun and non-academic, and he’ll probably relax and ultimately thrive.

The first promotional piece to which I recall being exposed is a clever, and even amusing television commercial. It features a recognizable actor (he was a supporting kid on Malcolm in the Middle, then he had [still has?] his own show about being a kid in the 50s or something) waxing cynical about "the arts." I can remember these "skits" from the ad:

1. While walking with his mother in the park, he passes a "street musician" and snidely tells him to "get a job." His mom is obviously embarrassed (It caused me to laugh out loud, because I could absolutely relate [to the kid, I mean]).

2. A dog that has obviously fetched a frisbee or something, brings it to the kid, who looks at it, shakes his head, and deposits in the trash.

3. A clown at a children's birthday party fashions some sort of balloon animal. Our star seems unimpressed, and responds to the clown's presentation of the item with "I don't see it" (meaning, he can't really see the "dog" shape).

The ad ends with something about "if we don't expose our kids to the arts, this is what happens."

While the premise of the TV spot was humorous, the apparent "message" in the second ad—one from a magazine—almost completely escapes understanding.

It features a well-composed black & white photo of an anorexic lady making the letter K or an aardvark shape with her limbs.

(I think this is the one, by [and © the archive of] Barbara Morgan)

The caption reads (paraphrased) "without the arts in schools, kids will think Martha Graham is a snack cracker."

The only arguments I have ever read or otherwise heard have been along the same lines. They're basically one type of circular argument about how without exposure to and/or training about art, we won't be able to appreciate art.The arguments fail to address a legitimate, even mildly tangible reason for honing the ability to appreciate art. It's usually something like "well, it opens your eyes to new things" or "um, it makes you well-rounded."

Of course, never mind that there are plenty of more rewarding, and even more organic, ways to have one's eyes opened to new things, or becoming the "well-rounded" person apparently being touted by these guys.

The whole idea of the importance of context in art has always bothered me. The idea that it matters what the artist was thinking or feeling, or how much her husband abused her, or how many lovers he had at one time, is absurd to me. It only serves to force an unnecessary perspective upon one.

Contained in the film "Dr. Terror's House Of Horrors" is an effective illustration of the trouble with force-feeding arbitrary (or “universally lauded" [can anyone say Keith Haring or Andy Warhol?]) pieces of art into public consciousness. In one of its episodes, Christopher Lee portrays an art critic in the midst of a crowd of admirers, as he leads a parade through an art gallery, pompously denouncing one painting after another. The worshipful gathering applauds and laughs uproariously, and seems to hang on each pronouncement.

A slight, professorlike, personage (played by Michael Gough) emerges from an office just as the critic begins lambasting one of the man's paintings. Instead of blushing at apparently having put his foot in his mouth, the critic actually tightens his grip on this mild artist's ego, and continues the tirade to the man's face. He denounces the man's painting and even insults his general fitness as an artist. The man, seemingly defeated, withers back into his office.

However, moments later, an attractive daughter/assistant girl emerges in the artist's place, with a canvas, requesting an impromptu critique of an eccentric piece by an "up-and-comer." The critic seems awestruck, and immediately bestows his highest praise, specifically addressing the artist's use of color and composition, and remarking that the artist obviously possesses a delicate touch. In fact, the critic immediately hopes to arrange a meeting with this amazing talent.
No sooner has he learned that the artist is actually in attendance, than the artist in question waddles in behind the girl from the office and approaches the critic. To his chagrin, and the apparent delight of everyone in attendance, the artist is a chimpanzee. The critic is laughed out of the gallery.

The original artist, whose work was disgraced by the critic, assumes the role of the critic's shadow, reminding him as often as possible of the critic's public humiliation. In one instance, the artist has followed him to a reception, where he appears to be the featured speaker. As his discourse begins, the artist slowly displays a string of paper doll monkey cutouts, from an angle from which only the critic can see him. The critic loses his composure and dismisses himself.

In true B horror (Amicus) fashion, and in keeping with its title, the story proceeds to feature an attempted murder, a dismemberment, a suicide, a car crash, and the senseless destruction of a pair of lives.

This story fittingly illustrates the problem with arbitrarily mandated exposure to art. The only reason the critic feels humiliated is that he has praised the painting skills of a lower primate. What he, and the folks behind this goofball campaign, seem to miss, is that no credential "worthifies" someone to appreciate art.

Instead of being embarrassed, he should've been ashamed of himself; fate had revealed what his conscience was unable to bring to light—he was a self-righteous asshole. The monkey’s painting quite easily could’ve been absolutely wonderful to gaze upon. Whether or not it was done by a master would be irrelevant. In fact, whether any art is manmade or even intentional is inconsequential.

To be fair, I know myself to often latch onto an artist, almost at the expense of art. However, even this tendency is born of a desire to simplify the process of surrounding myself with “art” that pleases me. I prefer to find artists whose work is consistently good; in music it means I can generally expect something powerful from them with each album release. However, periodically I will either appreciate a single “work” by an artist whose repertoire is overall lacking, or be “taken in” by superficial similarities in another artist’s work. While my “critical” ear is far from perfect, the lack of depth eventually reveals itself upon further exposure to other pieces of art.

Back to the original subject. That laughably crappy eating disorder promotional ad with the dancer is a prime example of some contingent of pompous liberals failing their miserable attempt to both A) use the name-dropping method of mandating appreciation for an artist and B) persuade with ugly imagery.

What they accomplish instead is the illustration of their lack of connection with reality. Nobody knows or really cares to know who the hell Martha Graham is/was (it's was, by the way).

Now, before you say it, let me preempt your response by saying "No—you don't count. You aren't "everybody" and—in fact—aren't even close to being "everybody". You might have heard of her before reading this, or seeing the ad, but your life exposure (which I wager had little or nothing to do with official curricular exposure) has obviously been inordinately bent in the direction of "the stage" or choreography, or homosexuality, or whatever else fills in the blank. (Also, see my note below*)

Her name seemed vaguely familiar to me, but I didn’t know who she was, until I had seen the ad and done the math. The resounding reaction in my mind was, “if the worst imaginable scenario that might arise from a lack of art education is a consensus belief that the namesake of this leotard-clad Ruth Bader-Ginsburg is a snack cracker, then please, oh please, appropriate those funds for the study of remote viewing, or the preservation of the green necked spotted dwarf snipe; hell, invest it in an expedition to El Dorado.”

And as for that television ad. The only real messages I could see myself gathering from it were “lack of the arts in school will help your children discern between important and unimportant things” and possibly “lack of the arts in school will make your kid an asshole.” Of course, of the two messages, only the former could possibly be true. The less we indoctrinate children to tread softly—or even lie to themselves—when confronted by something truly insipid, the more honest and critically-minded they will likely become.

Don’t tip well if the service was bad. Don’t stick to some 15% rule when the service was stellar. Fat people are fat (like me, for example). Ugly people are ugly. Uninspiring people are uninspiring. Balloon animals suck.

Sure, take the kid aside and say “keep the ‘get a job’ comments to yourself, or at least make them under your breath, ok? I realize the guy is basically a panhandler who plays more upon people’s pity than their appreciation of art, but he is one of God’s children. Be nice, ok?”

On again-off again talent Lou Reed would probably endorse this campaign with enthusiasm. He sings in "Sweet Jane" of cynics, referring to them as "evil mothers" (used the way rappers use "muthas") who will tell you that "women never really faint and villains always blink their eyes." The problem is that women almost never really faint, and villains really do blink their eyes, just like us regular guys. Kids don't need to be spoon fed. Just ask that giggling, messy kid at the highchair with the pureed peas dripping from his bib.

*Note:
In my research, I came across what might as well be my sister pages at the World Socialist Web Site. The article’s title says it all:

“Financial problems close the Martha Graham dance center in New York City”

Well, it should anyway. But I’ll spell it out. Basically, the lack of interest in our trembling snack cracker lady has been so pronounced that, after running on the fumes of art-loving philanthropists for decades, the Martha Graham NYC dance center finally ran out of money. In fact, as soon as the school got its first taste of reality, it collapsed. After Graham’s death, the benefactors slowly lost interest and died off. Then, despite mortgaging the property for a cool million, the school sputtered out—the number of people willing to actually pay to be involved was negligible to the point of financial ruin.

And that’s in New York

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here’s one last reference shot of the glory that was Martha Graham, in the astoundingly poignant portrait "Woman Emerging From Womb While Pooing".

April 10, 2005

Musing: Mesothelioma

2006-08-03T14:41:00.000-07:00

Awhile ago I mentioned how one might "retaliate" against companies with poor business practices, or those who have wronged them. In a similar vein, I ask all those within earshot to join me in running searches for words from any of those "class action" lawsuits against so-and-so company, which are among the chief culprits in stifling research growth, as well as causing very real financial difficulties to the average American. Frivolous, but especially ridiculously enormous, jury awards are among the most flagrant accountability-free causes of economic drain in our country.

Current search terms to watch include "vioxx", "mesothelioma" and "celebrex" (add "lawsuit, lawyer, settlement" etc), but you can monitor the costs by checking out Overture's bid tool here:

http://uv.bidtool.overture.com/d/search/tools/bidtool/

Overture handles Yahoo!, MSN and a few others. But doing the same searches on Google will work, since a similar proportional relationship will exist with their own "AdWords" pay per click program. Just be sure to click on the first 5 or 10 sponsored results for each search you do. Let the page load, then go back.

I know Overture has safeguards against repeated requests from the same IP address, but I believe if you search similar terms and click on each result, you'll be fine. It makes sense that a legitimate searcher would click on many of the first results.

Please excuse my confusing wording of all this; I don't know what my deal is, but I am mentally deficient right now.

January 06, 2005

Musing: Chiu & Bridget Jones

2006-08-03T14:38:00.000-07:00

I might start a daily or weekly or whenever I feel like it quote from Alex Chiu, who is cool.

Today's:

"Whoever can convince the first 4 or 5 nations to join the corporation is the messiah. If you can somehow convince China, USA, Russia, and other key countries to form a corporation, you definitely are the messiah without any doubt. You then deserve the credit."

-----

I am really excited about the new Bridget Jones movie that's coming out. The main reason is because it's funny how they show how girls go through these really tough times and they get kind of fat, or think they are, and they always weigh themselves, and wonder if they look fat in this dress, when really it is what's inside that counts, of course. So there's that. Also, the whole thing how it's like they think they like a guy but then they get some celery in their teeth or they get a wedgie and it's so embarrassing for them. Those types of things are so hilarious. Where do those people come up with those ideas? Probably from inventive genius hilarity school.

November 18, 2004

Mundane: Gulpe Diem

2006-08-03T14:37:00.000-07:00

Gulpe diem.
My life's philosophy is hereby "gulpe diem". It means, roughly translated:
I'd seize the day, were it not for my often paralyzing anxiety.

November 10, 2004

Musing: 2004 Election Returns

2006-08-03T14:36:00.000-07:00

I admit to being surprised and impressed by John Kerry today. He showed some integrity, and appeared to be considering the nation's emotional health, more than his own.

This was no 2000 Florida, but it very easily could have erupted into something similar. John Edwards' words early this morning had me seriously concerned about just such a prospect. Thankfully, they have said "uncle."

I checked out Fox News, which apparently decided it would go for the country's coveted stuttering demographic. It was really bad. The other big dudes, from ABC to CNN were just plain boring.

For the record, MSNBC's coverage kicked some serious ass. It was both entertaining and enlightening. With the exception of Ron Reagan, who is quite a bumbling idiot, and Joe Scarborough, who seemed to be lip-synching to a broken record, everyone on their "panel" had something interesting to add. Chris Matthews is freaking good.

Here We Go Again (as of 3am MST)

With literally 26 precincts left to report in Ohio (.03 percent of the voters or ~10,000), Bush leads Kerry by 145,000 votes (4% of the total voters). However, somehow the election is still considered "up for grabs". It appears that among the lessons of 2000's election, democrats learned the incredible filibustering power of the Johnny Cochran's of our nation. Despite the simple mathematical impossibility of a Kerry victory, no concession by the grey goblin appears on the horizon.

Apparently the current fuchsia herring is something called a provisional ballot. However, even the most generous extrapolations (by Dem strategists) put the possible votes at 400,000. A provisional ballot is intended to help in the most exceptional exceptions of voter scenarios. Saying that most, or even many of these ballots will end up being submitted, properly qualified, and tallied, would be like saying that most people will license, spay/neuter, and potty-train their pets.

Considering that among other states' past provisional ballots, roughly 10% have ultimately qualified, and been counted, this is just another smokescreen, presumably set to dissolve just slowly enough to allow another team of ambulance chasers into the buckeye state, to take matters into their grubby hands.

By granting myriad concessions, such as fully 25% of the provisionals being qualified and counted, and allowing the 400,000 supposed outstanding provisionals, it puts Kerry in a position where he must win every single remaining standard vote, PLUS all the qualified provisionals (A-L-L, as in 100%), plus he'd have to call up Mayor Daley to help him "find" another 35,000+ voters (among the dead, illegal aliens, and incarcerated rapists), just to make things even.

A more realistic scenario is that roughly half of any remaining votes will go to each candidate, meaning Bush would end up with an approximate 145,000 vote lead, before any provisional ballots are qualified and counted. More conservative estimates put the numbers of total provisional ballots at between 150,000 and 200,000. Taking 10% of those gives us 20,000 qualified provisionals, 10,000 of which would go to each candidate.

Looks like it's gonna take some serious legal wrangling to pull this one off for Mr. Heinz. It could well put Florida's 36-day stalemate to shame.

November 03, 2004

Opine: Guest Writer: George W Bush Is Soooo Stuuuuuupid

2006-08-03T14:35:00.000-07:00

George Bush is so stupid. He always says stupid things HAHA!! Do you ever see him on TV saying stupid things. He is soooooooo stupid. Can you believe how stupid his is. And all the Iran Contra and Sandanistas all that. Man, he is one stupid dumb idiot.

We keep saying people who stap bombs onto teenage boys and use them as human weapons of mass destruction are the terrorists, but that is wrong from dawn to daylight. George W Bush is the one who's a terrorist. He does all kinds of stuff like send our troops over to the other countries and they fight there, and all those guys who get their heads cut off, and all the oil cartels and regimes. Now who's the real terrorist? Saddam Hussein? No he is in jail. It is the US president named George W(hat a stupid dumb idiot) Bush who is the real terrorist around.

Also, he does things like says "terrorists are bad and we should kill them" and then later tells people "now watch how good I am at golfing." I mean, if that isn't the perfect example of what a stupid or bad man will do, then I don't know what to say about it now.

Also, he pays all of the richest people millions of dollars every day so they will vote for him and then lets all the black people starve in the gutters. And he also sends trucks full of malt liquor to the ghettos to make black people die, and Mexicans from Mexico. But then he learns Mexican so he can talk it and fool all of the "a legal alien" from our other borders. He can fool everyone even the American people all over the whole country we live in.

What about he keeps letting all the drug companies killing elderly and keep selling all these drugs? That's the real drug problem these days. Not all the crack or angel dust or CCP, but the giant drug companies like all the ones he owns or he used to own. And using all our socialsecurity money to pay off all the drug cartels. Again, what do you think, is he a right man for running our country of ours?

Some of the other things he does is this. He grew up with a spoon in his mouth and his "daddy" Mr. Bush always just paid him through it all. Through high school and the legal Bar and universities and scholarships all around the country, and then "big daddy" bought him baseball teams and oil mines and tankers. And then he ran for Texas governor and made the kids all learn and took all the money to pay off his oil barons.

In the fake miliatry known as the Coast Guard he was in I mean who else could get away with that at Vietnam? Bill Clinton grew up poor and unattested though all his life, and rose out of the slums and became senator and next thing you know he's president and did he ever go in the coast guard or another such thing. That's my point exactly, numnuts. And all those places that proved he was out playing cricket with his Yale buddies in the country clubs all over this country in which we live, but not at the coast guard anyway dodging the draft.

What about when 911 (farhnheit 911 is what I should say) and he put all our troups into Afghanistan warlords, and chased the Jihad and Taliban all over the desert and couldn't find anything but caves and children to slaugfhter. So what does he do he calls his dad and "big George" tells him to go kill Sadaam instead because he should of finished the job 20 years ago. So then he decides to stop hunting for Ben Laden and go after Sadaam hussein. So he goes to give a speech at the UN and says "The United States of America will not be mocked, but must stand for liberty and justice, and since Sadam Hussean has weapons mass destruction every in his whole country, we must pursue the course." So all of the UN secretaries and generals say "yes, yes, we support the USA and we want to make sure of Sadaam Hussein, but at least first at least let us go tell him to mantle of his weapons" but low and behold, what does George BUsh (JR) do? He starts nuking Iraq the very next day or very next week later.

And then they put all these old computer animations by George Lucas or someone that shows them saving all the Arabians and throwing out all the "evil" Sadam things like his statues. And next thing, you know GWBush is saying he is the savior to the people. What kind of BS are we talking about here. So the whole time Osam Ben Laden is going around making video tapes and beheading GOOD PEOPLE left and right, our American "president" (yeah, right) is posing for pictures on Air Craft Carrier and says "I am a soldier just like in good old Vietnam." I ask you who is stupid now.

The other things I know about I don't even want to say becasuse I am scared for my own life (not really, but almost) because of all the consiparcies his is doing. Like when Dan Rather's Evening News started to criticize George Bush, the presidnet Bush, then they put a gag order to him and threatened to take away his license and fire him and shut him up or else if he started going with the things he said. So instead of finally proving all of the lies, about Iran, and Kenneth Starr and Enron and drug lords and oil cartels and Dick (what a perfect name, am I right) Chaney and all his secret deals, and all of the things. That is what I am trying to say. Just watch 911 or Columbine movies with Micahel Moore. Now we're talkjing.

Charlton Heston used to go around shooting all the anuimals he saw until he got sued by the ACLU. But you never hear about it because of all the gag orders and corpus cristi that *DUBYA* keeps having to them. And you never will know about it because George W Bush bailed him out just like his dad and kept it sectrect in his secret society and in the Luminati Freemason and all those places. Or all of the other conspiracy theories he is doing. With abortion clinics, and trying to stop health care and make it so only the top half a percent can get flu shots or get a leg fixed it breaks. And trying to send all our jobs to Uruguay and South Africa and apartide.

I guess I pretty much made my point to you all, right. So my whole point is, George DUBYA Bush(wack) is sooooooooo stupid. I mean, what a dum dum stupid idiot president of the united states. He is the head of all these secret cosnotsta and secret elite society and is the mastermind of it all. Did I mention the following: President of the USA is George Bush is sooooooooooo stupid.

October 29, 2004

Musing: Meteorologist

2006-08-03T14:32:00.000-07:00

Hi friends and enemies,

A:
Sunfall Festival was cool. I recorded both shows on my little crappy minidisc thing. The second night (and last show by them forever maybe) turned out much better cause I gave my little mic some extra power.

B:
Sleepy Hollow was mixed. It was an incredible experience seeing "my" art presented by dozens of people much more talented or dedicated than me. Well, I didn't have anything to do with the music, which was why it sounded good, and where most of the talent was showcased. But the soloists all were amazing, and my favorite guy, who portrayed Brom Bones, was very complimentary of the lyrics. I tell you one thing about lyric writing--it always looks worse on paper than when it is sung. It's like a good singer knows what the hell you meant when you were writing it.

Well, except for during the line "glowing streams/your tresses flowing/delicately lain" when the girl playing the song's namesake (Katrina) would always look down at her dress and brush it softly, misunderstanding "tresses" apparently.

I recorded the last show which turned out to be Friday, since Saturday got rained out, dag nab it. So sometime some of you will hear it. Some other local event people want me and Steve to put on some more stuff. Maybe this time we say "OK, for like a million dollars." And we plan to record the show in a studio type place in a few months.

C:
Also, we are buying a little house sort of near a prairie, but really right by a huge power station. It is in Springville, and is 3 years old, and is so nice. I am really excited to quit paying other people's mortgages for them. If you know me at all, and give an at's rass, then ask me for a link some photos. Or get invited, or help us move in on November 20th. OK?

We close on my 30th+1 day mark of bieng alive. So I just missed.

D:
This is part one of a probably 2 part series on stupid institutions. This one is the weather man thing. Next one is supposed to be presidential debates.

First, the weather man. Which station manager's slacker son was the first man handed this fabricated "news" position. And what's the deal with the "meteorologist" moniker? Is it merely another case of janitor becoming “custodial engineer,” or a stewardess graduating to “flight attendant?”

Meteorologist has to be the worst euphemism ever invented. It is almost exactly as clairvoyant guide is to psychic. It's a wannabe legitimizer for a publicly acceptable form of witch-doctorin'. How could it be anything more? What legitimate science allows for bookie-like odds-making as a means of describing a hypothesis?

Imagine pharmaceutical companies operating under these elastic constraints. Better yet, read on:

"Um yeah, so we think there's an 80% chance of the placebo being outperformed by our drug, but we want to release it to the public now. Then when the real results come in, we can ignore them and just make a new prediction. But we want you to just keep ignoring the rate of success, or ANY numbers we introduce. In fact, please never ever try to compare our predictions with what actually occurs. It is rarely correct and, adding historical medical data to the means of analysis, is the same, if not worse, than just plain old guessing would give someone. However, please ignore all of this, cause we are ologists, just like all you archaeologists and biologists and geologists. We wear labcoats sometimes, and we have poor social skills, and all that. OK, buddy? Thanks."

And how many people--even devout weather watchers--actually trust the forecast? I mean the forecast forecast, not like "today it will be 80 degrees and sunny". I am talking about the only manifestation of weather info that could conceivably serve any practical purpose: the five-day forecast or weekly outlook.

I know roughly zero people who would watch Monday's forecast for definitive travel planning information, and not check the weather repeatedly throughout the week, until late Friday afternoon, on their way out of the house. Nobody trusts the forecast, despite being willing to live and die by it.

And, worst of all--they subject us to the effects of their disorder:

"Oh, wait, I'm watching the weather."

"Wait, you should bring a jacket with you."

"Hey in the place of actual conversation or the discussion of something potentially valuable to either of us, I am going to carefully regurgitate what Pete Giddings said about how clouds will be shaped in three days."

Not only that, but the same people actually watch something called the Weather Channel. Here's a transcript of a weather report I recently observed, while trapped out of channel knob's reach facing a TV at the DMV:

"Yesterday it was raining. Today it isn't but tonight it might, but I won't commit to it. I'd put the odds at about 1:3 that it will rain. So go with that. Take only one out of every 4 trips you were planning for tonight, and bring only 1 out of every 4 articles of clothing. “Now tomorrow, expect partly cloudy skies, as opposed to those that are literally without a single cloud anywhere, or those that are completely monopolized by a single, unperforated cloud, the size of the whole state. Tomorrow will be partly cloudy, with a chance--that's right--a chance of light showers. Of course if it doesn't rain, it's because the chance wasn't taken, but if it does, it's because my calculations were correct. And if it rains heavily, well--that's a whole other algorithm entirely.

“’What's a light rain?’ you ask? Why, it is the rain that falls within a few days of my predicting the occurrence of light rain. 'And what about sleet? What exactly is sleet?' Well I am certainly happy you asked. It's kinda neat--one of natures real shapeshifters. When I have predicted snow, and it rains, that is called sleet. However, when I have predicted rain, and it snows, that particular form of precipitation is known as sleet. Drizzle--I saw it on the tip of your tongue--is when I predict fog and it rains, or I predict rain and it is merely foggy.

“However, even if I tell you there's an 80% chance of snow for 6 consecutive days and it never snows, you will think nothing of it, but will have dressed for snow each day. Literally walking through a partly cloudy sky, the sun blistering and baking your exposed nose, your $240 parka doubled in weight by the copious sweatflow from most of your body. Since I gave the snow a 4:1 chance of rearing its flake, you are walking around in full Eskimo regalia, in the middle of speedo weather--ok, there's no such thing, I admit. But good looking girls in bikinis weather.

“What's even more fun is the fact that on the seventh day, for which I have decreased the chances of any precipitation to a mere 20%, you are walking in jeans and a t-shirt, through 12 inches of snow, and have completely forgotten about the pervious 6 days, during which time you lost approximately half your body's water weight, and burst the seams of your engorged, and now worthless, winter coat. On your way home, you think to yourself ‘I need to get home to catch the forecast for the weekend--camping in the high Uintas!’”

Yeah, I never finish what I start, but pretend I did. Love, edBanky

October 26, 2004

Mundane: Sleepy Sunfallow Festival

2006-08-03T14:31:00.000-07:00

And so recently I was informed that the coolest band in five worlds and one or two unincorporated hamlets, Sunfall Festival, is reforming for at least a couple nights. I shant look this gift horse in its mouth, but my fingers are hidden, crossed behind my back.

It was a pity that their influence of the musical world had merely to fade during the past couple of years. Seeing as I always prefer to enjoy an idol's burnout, as opposed to their fading away, I hope that this new leaf stays turned over for awhile. Then they can burn out like they tended to do at the end of each show. None of these fade-outs. I'm talking a "What It Feels Like" level hurricane.

The lone problem with their reformation, for me specifically, is that their record release/performance return weekend coincides with the opening of an operetta type musical that I and my friend have written. The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, in Concert (see sleepyhollowshow.com) opens in Lehi, Utah on the 15th and runs thrice more--once each on the 16th, 22nd and 23rd of October. I have been superstoked about seeing something I created (although I only contributed the lyrics; Steve is the mastermind and composer genius of the whole deal) brought to life. This seems promising of a thrill I have never approached during any prior experience in my life.

Since I would rather see Sunfall's opening show than even THE DEBUT of our own show, I made the decision to blow the LoSHiC opening night in favor of experiencing the night's more significant art. However, I also can't conscience missing a single Sunfall show that is essentially within my easy reach. Since my mom and sister and he family will be attending on the 16th, I feel obligated to attend myself. So my current plan is to experience the LoSHiC first, then immediately drive the 20 minutes south to the Sunfall show. Since Sunfall's doors open at 8pm and they have a few guests, I figure I should be able to catch at least some of the show. Maybe not. Nevertheless I will enjoy the next few weeks' entertainment.

The lyrics for the LOSHIC were a significant challenge for me, while also being an exciting, and especially fun, experience. The challenges: Lyrics to a love song and a dance number. The fun: All the songs about darkness and evil and murder and justice.

Anyway, I invite all my friends and other readers within scent of Utah Lake to come join us on the 22nd or 23rd. Since most of my friends who would ever see this entry are also big Sunfall fans, I wouldn't presume to ask them to show up on opening weekend.

Briefly, while I'm on the subject, I wanted to reprise an entry from a long time back, which addressed my displeasure at "image" related "concessions" I felt that Sunfall was making toward the beginning of their fade to silence. Having thought about my reaction at the time, I realize that I was being just as pretentious as I claimed they were being.

While the "image" of musicians and other artists seems to always bear a strong influence on me, I must admit that criticizing artists for anything outside of their art is pointless and very obsessive fan-like. In other words, if I truly appreciate their contribution to music, and am guided by that appreciation, anything else is peripheral, and frankly, inconsequential.

It would be like a guy offering me a really high paying job, on condition that I change my brand of toilet paper. Since I couldn't care less about whose product I use (in this case), and in return for making this "change" I would be compensated for my ability to perform skillfully in something entirely unrelated to butt-wiping, the choice would be easy. So I am dumb. Or was dumber than I am now (I hope). I am still dumb, but maybe I have grown and learned something in this area.

October 02, 2004

Musing: A Huge Victory for Evil Empires Everywhere

2006-08-03T14:28:00.000-07:00

We lost a remarkable man and a symbol of America's potential today. I want to pay breif tribute to the 40th, and the 20th century's most important, President of the United States.

While we possibly lost Ronald Reagan when his mind finally gave way under the weight of Alzheimer's, the fact that his heart was still beating until earlier today seemed to be one of the few remaining comforts and assurances that America still has the chance to again thrive. In a decade during which I have been embarrassed to call myself Republican (and haven't for several years), he represented possibly the last remnant of a platform-true version of the formerly righteous party.

I don't exaggerate when I say that his death is a significant symbolic blow to American and human liberty, and our nation's sovereignty. My despondency is gaining strength as I type.

If George W. Bush is the personification of our hope, then our nation is seriously screwed. With the overwhelming willingness for Republican automatons in public office to line up behind "the man with no spine," my faith is wafer-thin. And since I seem to be the only of my friends and acquaintences to believe that the proper action is to vote on principle, and not for the lesser among a handful of evils, it appears that nothing will change anytime soon.

This sad event will have one of two distinct effects: The nation will mourn for a day-and-a-half, and status quo will reclaim its reign, or patriots and honest Americans everywhere will recognize this wakeup call, and act accordingly from now, on through the end of November. As it stands now, this national tragedy looks a lot like one of those imperceptible, but ultimately inestimable pushes toward Armageddon. We need help.

God bless Ronald Reagan and his family. May he rest in peace and pride.

June 5, 2004

Musing: Sticking It To Juno Who

2006-08-03T14:26:00.000-07:00

Nothing particularly amazing here; I want to mention an idea I had, which I would totally use were I in the right situation. Maybe I'll do it to Juno, the ISP that outright and criminally screwed me out of several months worth of Internet bills.

Perhaps this wouldn't work, since I assume "pay-per-click" advertisers aren't charged for multiple click-throughs from the same computer, resulting from a single keyword search. But I am thinking it probably will work, since the clicks from the same IP address, but for different search terms, should "count" against PPC advertisers.

I guess I can mention the actual idea now. Sabotage the site of the offending entity by performing searches for products and/or services for which they would be likely to have placed PPC bids. Initiate a barrage of searches; as you start to find patterns of keywords that result in sponsored links to your enemy, replicate the process until your fingers hurt.

Oh. I forgot to mention the part that actually does the damage in the scenario. Each time the blackguard's site appears as a sponsor, make absolutely certain to click through to the site itself. For results that have myriad sponsors vying for top billing, the PPC rate is probably more than a dollar!

Since Juno owes me $30 plus interest and punitive damages, plus a small consideration for my priceless "revenge labor," I might be satisfied to find 40 or 50 keyword searches that would cost Juno quite a bit. Most likely I would only be able to find two or three that exceed a buck, so the number I'd need to complete might ultimately exceed 100. Ironically, the more searches I am forced to follow, the more I am owed by Juno for my time. But the more I am owed for my time, the less likely it becomes that I will ever "catch up!" Alas, Juno wins. Or do they?

It's Friday night! Tomorrow I'm gonna hang out at my buddy Steve's home; he's a guy with a ripping fast cable connection and, being the obsessed Prince of Denmark that I am, he'll have to give me a good 30 minutes behind the ol' cathode ray tube. You see, armed with my previous search experience (and a spreadsheet of search terms and their apparent popularity among advertisers) and this dectastically superior net connection, the process will amount to a blurry whoosh on an oscillating office chair. Advantage back to Mr. Banky!

But, wait--there's more! If you act now, you can also mosey Monday morning into your cozy T1-powered cubicle, whose Athlon 2200+ based nervous system represents yet another distinct and grassy knoll for snipers like you. Oh yeah, and your wife reclines behind her very own version of a Herkimer Battle Jitney, from which she employs the electromagnet's "next inevitable phase" of a non-lethal weapon, and enthusiastically, and with supreme loyalty, psychofraculatingly hollers "fire in the hole!"

Yummy.

In case this practice is illegal, then realize this is all tongue-in-cheek; I unrecommend this method of exacting to anyone.

++++++++++Informed Update+++++++++++++++

Checking out Overture's "View Bids" to get an idea of cost per click for some of these terms, I was PLEASANTLY surprised at what I found:

"ISP"

NetZero Internet – Official Site
Signup for NetZero today. Stop paying AOL, MSN or Earthlink too much for your Internet access. 2 minute download, no credit card required. www.netzero.net
(Advertiser's Max Bid: $3.00)

Juno High Speed ISP - Only $14.95
Use Juno to connect to the Internet at less than the half the price of AOL, MSN or Earthlink. Nationwide connections. Only 2-minutes to download. Sign up now. my.juno.com
(Advertiser's Max Bid: $1.63)

BlueLight ISP - 1/2 the Price of AOL
Sign up and get a free month trial. No credit card required. No ads - no problem. www.mybluelight.com
(Advertiser's Max Bid: $1.63)

"cheap ISP"

NetZero Internet – Official Site
Signup for NetZero today. Stop paying AOL, MSN or Earthlink too much for your Internet access. 2 minute download, no credit card required. www.netzero.net
(Advertiser's Max Bid: $4.07)

Juno Official Site, 1/2 the Price of AOL
Use Juno to connect to the Internet at less than the half the price of AOL, MSN or Earthlink. Nationwide connections. Only 2-minutes to download. Sign up now. my.juno.com
(Advertiser's Max Bid: $3.01)

"cheap internet"

NetZero Internet – Official Site
Signup for NetZero today. Stop paying AOL, MSN or Earthlink too much for your Internet access. 2 minute download, no credit card required. www.netzero.net
(Advertiser's Max Bid: $4.11)

Juno Official Site, 1/2 the Price of AOL
Use Juno to connect to the Internet at less than the half the price of AOL, MSN or Earthlink. Nationwide connections. Only 2-minutes to download. Sign up now. my.juno.com
(Advertiser's Max Bid: $2.98)

BlueLight ISP - 1/2 the Price of AOL
Sign up and get a free month trial - no credit card required - no ads - no problem. www.mybluelight.com
(Advertiser's Max Bid: $2.98)

"cheap dialup"

NetZero Hispeed Internet – Official Site
Block pop-ups and surf the Internet up to five times faster using your existing phone line. No cable modem or DSL required. No credit card required. www.netzero.net
(Advertiser's Max Bid: $1.83)

Juno Official Site, 1/2 the Price of AOL
Use Juno to connect to the Internet at less than the half the price of AOL, MSN or Earthlink. Nationwide connections. Only 2-minutes to download. Sign up now. my.juno.com
(Advertiser's Max Bid: $1.76)

The fun continues for awhile. So it turns out, one could finish his revenge spree in a matter of minutes (note: NetZero and Juno are under the same parent company, United Online). Just the above list tallies at $27.00. Life is worth living.

February 28, 2004

Musing: Jacker Cracks

2006-08-03T14:24:00.000-07:00

"We do not trust education those who already on the dark party, on the party those who wants to make the world on own similarity"

Crackers or cRacKeRz (those who come up with cRaCkz and pAtChEz for aPpZ) are a rare breed. In their obligatory ".nfo" file, included (so I've been told) in their distributed archives, they tend to do one or more of several things, including:

-The "gReEtZ": Giving their shouts out to fellow "reverse engineers"
- Contact Info: Almost invariably something like "unavailable for security reasons," when it's not some kind of domain redirect like "kickme.to/hAcKeRz."
- How to join: Usually something along the lines of "sorry, we're too elite for that."
- Disclaimer/conscience play: They might say "this crack is not to be applied to any software" and/or "if you use this crack to 'evaluate' the software, and like it, then buy it"
- Logo thing: All of them have a graffiti tag-like rendition of their "cReW's" name or acronym.They all look pretty much the same.
- A dedication: ?? Yep.They might dedicate their illegal activity to a fallen comrade or public figure, or familiar entity.

Speaking of comrades brings me to the last, completely entertaining element of many of these .NFOs:the justification.They will launch a diatribe covering why it's alright for them to crack software, or steal it, or reverse engineer it, or whatever they do. Sometimes, it turns into some wannabe philosophy discourse. Still other times, when you factor eastern Europeans trying to speak English, it turns into this:

TSRh [ed: stands for “t____ S____ Russian h____”?—it’s a Russian group]

“THe Last ANTiHEROES

This is our social protest to all rotting from violence and fear to theworld. By all assholes, making money on trust. To all political rats thirsting, To cut off from a part. Everyone, who divides of the people in classes and levels, as a puff pie. To all dictators and other pseudo-owners of the world, dreaming to use human Freedom,placing them some restrictions, structure and trajectory of behaviour to itself somewhere. Who tries to make all man by a part of a not conscious working material. Everyone, who wants to stop us. Everyone,who wants to establish the order in the world. We for inviolability of human freedom. We for the clean world. We for clean consciousness. We for infinity of the world, for freedom, dream also hope for a spirit of clean air, which will give us force on struggle.The rotten people. The black sky. The lifeless feeling of the approach untied among themselves tests. Madness to be, that,whomyou- not, also delirium. It is impossible, is in two modular conditions in one and too instant.To think of it already emergency phenomenon.The phenomenon of empty, dead life. Life of other time. Other founder and it are natural other relation. We any more do not trust legality. In the promises. We any more do not search for the heroes,and we do not wait last indicator, after thermonuclear of explosion.We do not trust education those who already on the dark party, on the party those who wants to make the world on own similarity. We do not wish to replace other cheek, when already all man is at Stages of destruction. Light - is close, when knows a way to self-destruction. The explosion of all molecules will result in regeneration of Life on a ground.

[E.N.D.]”

Oh yeah—[SIC]

January 29, 2004

Mundane: Food storage

2006-08-03T13:46:00.000-07:00

My religion puts emphasis on "food storage;" basically, one should be prepared for when terrorists spark Armageddon. So, for the record, I have decided to just store mine on my person. Not like in a backpack or anything, but on my body, itself. Like specifically in my abdominal and pectoral and posterior regions. Actually, I might as well admit that, yes, I have actually been slowly building up my "cache" for the last couple of years. But now I'm on the task in earnest. Just for the record.

November 21, 2003

Musing: ¡Hi Jole!

2006-08-03T13:44:00.000-07:00

Michael Jackson likes to sleep in beds with young boys but is repulsed by the idea of man-boy love. His attorney is the smartest guy in five worlds:

"He's come back specifically to confront these charges head on," Geragos said said earlier outside the jail. "He is greatly outraged by the bringing of these charges. He considers this to be a big lie. He understands the people who are outraged, because if these charges were true, I assure you Michael would be the first to be outraged." (emphasis added by EdBanky)

Read it twice if you don't see it first off. Apparently, if Michael Jackson learned that he had been molesting young boys, he'd be irate. How admirable and disturbing.

November 20, 2003

Musing: Early Bird

2006-08-03T13:43:00.001-07:00

I love Steven Wright, so I hope this really is his thought:

"The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese."

The guy calmly observing in the shadows can end up doing pretty well for himself, without all the risk and the lost sleep of being a "go-getter".

August 18, 2003

Opine: Dusty Baker = Overrated II

2006-08-03T13:43:00.000-07:00

The only other thing I forgot to mention is Baker's honeymoon season with the Giants in '93. They were like 10 games ahead of the Braves (yep, the Atlanta Braves used to be in the National League West) with two months to go in the season--supposedly a shoo in. After 162 games, both teams were 103-59, I believe. There was no Wild Card, like there is today, so they had to pitch in a one-game playoff. Dusty's decision for the game: Solomon Torres, the on again--off again rookie almost phenom for the Giants. Again, I shouted aloud when I discovered Dusty had put the season's fate in the supple, untried hands of an inconsistent rookie. The result was predictable, and the Giants would hold the embarrassing distinction of being overtaken in one of the most famous/infamous season ending breakdowns of all time. 103 wins and not a single playoff game to show for it.

Incidentally, it's only fair to mention that Dusty's decision in yesterday's game did not seem to backfire, as the Cubs ultimately won the game. If you ask me, they won despite his decision(s), but of course, I'm terribly bitter.

August 06, 2003

Opine: Dusty Baker = Overrated

2006-08-03T13:42:00.000-07:00

Dusty Baker is/was overrated. The culprit is that Dusty brown-nosers have never made the distinction between his babysitting ability and his worth as a tactician. All he is, or has ever been, is a really good babysitter. Maybe somewhat sharp; he was good at making a good, loving environment for his friends on his teams.

He is systematically outmanaged by nearly every manager against whom he contends. I haven't been taking notes for the last ten years, so I don't have a really legitimate log, but I can mention a few vague examples.

The most recent is tonight's Cubs game. I truly have not checked the score, but I am aware that he pulled pitcher Mark Prior from a 1-0 game after 6 innings of (I think) 2 or 3 hit ball, after throwing 70+ pitches. The team is on the very edge of contention in their mediocre league, so the game is important. I am mentioning this before knowing the outcome of his decision to illustrate that I am not a "20/20 hindsight" opportunist; if the "move" turns out ok, then so be it.

Earlier this year he managed the National League to a loss at the midsummer classic, the All-Star Game. It was against the same guy who outmanaged him 9 months earlier to an MLB world championship: Mike Soscia. The guy's a former Dodger, and named after the spoiled rich kids in the Outsiders for Pete's sake! In the game, Soscia was almost always one step ahead of Baker. Dusty would have a righty pitcher announced only to have Soscia send in a lefthanded batter. Dusty's bench would be spent, and Soscia's secret weapon was still awaiting his turn to bat for the first time.

During last year's World Series, it was very much the same deal. And much like a few years earlier, in the playoffs against the Mets, Dusty habitually called in the wrong reliever at the precisely wrong time, repeatedly. In this case, his decisions in game 6 were to blame, in my opinion, for the team's ultimate defeat at the hands of the Anaheim Angels. He repeatedly called upon relievers to get just one or two outs more than they had any right to try to get. If I remember correctly, the Giants entered the 7th inning with a 6 run lead in what would have earned the team its first world championship in San Francisco. But Dusty decided that, with two guys on base and a three-run lead, the guy responsible for necessitating so much of tightrope walking being done at the moment, should remain in the game for just one more hitter. That hitter was Scott Spezio--and that was all I wrote.

Well, not quite all: Against the Mets in 2000, following the most dramatic homerun in modern Giants' history, JT Snow's towering shot to right field, Dusty sent in the struggling Felix Rodriguez. Don't believe me if you don't want to, but I was screaming "No, Dusty, no!" I knew that he was the wrong guy for the job at that time. But Dusty had to stay F-Rod's buddy, foremost. The game was blown, and the Giants sputtered, squandering perhaps the best chance they have ever had at making it to a world championship.

So it just bugs the hell out of me that people, for years, have been demeaning the host of terrific players that have helped the Giants be competetive nearly every year. But now that Dusty's gone, the Giants are still winning like mad, with arguably less talent than with most of Dusty's Giant's teams. This time, the beneficiary is Felipe Alou. Now, I don't know about him as a marriage counselor, but he seems to have the managing part down pat. He's almost always lacked a "solid" team atop which he could shine as a tactician.

By contrast, Dusty's underachieving Chicago Cubs are sputtering around .500, with what should be the best starting staff in baseball, by far. He's got 4 pitchers that could/should be number 1 or 2 starters on most teams in the majors. His bullpen is stacked solid with Remlingers, Guthries, Farnsworths AND a stellar closer called Borowski. His offense for this year has included the likes of Sammy Sosa, Moises Alou (ha ha ho ho--the wrong Alou, apparently), Corey Patterson, Alex Gonzales, Eric Karros and Aramis Ramirez. I must admit that, even healthy, the offense could use some help. But compared to the current Giants' lineup--at least superficially--the Cubs look like the '27 Yankees.

The intangible thread? How about game-to-game team management? Felipe has it, Dusty don't.

August 05, 2003

Review, Book: Shacklebum - 3 stars

2006-08-03T13:40:00.001-07:00

I recently "finished" the Shackleton book, which was really entertaining and worthwhile. I was pretty disappointed as the author immediately spoiled the outcome of the expedition, right off the bat. And I could see why he was bitter toward the Norwegian Amundsen, who had beaten him to the South Pole just prior to the book's subject expedition.

In terms of an expedition and its goal, the whole thing was quite pitiful. They utterly failed. And I mean failed; if this would've been an Evil Kenivel (KenEvil? Kinievel?) record motorcycle jump attempt, it would've had the daredevil falling over on his bike prior to even reaching the base of the ramp. As a hot dog eating contest, the contestants would have all slipped while taking their seats and would've broken their tailbones. You get the idea, I hope.

They basically got southern enough to run into pack-ice, which I think is just impenetrable surface ice on the ocean. But they became "stuck" almost as soon as it started getting really icy down south. I don't think they ever made it to 80 degrees south even. So the whole narrative covers the expedition to a chunk of ice somewhere around 78 degrees south, and the trek back the way they came, groping for salvation at a civilized island.

Don't mistake me for not liking the story. I was enthralled from pretty early on. Just that to tell the gist of the story is to spin a truly miserable yarn. The fact that they had to endure what they did because of the degree of pitifulness of their failure is probably the biggest tragedy of the whole read.

Like, a few English guys apparently made it to the pole within weeks of Amundsen's success, but they all died at the point. Imagine their story. Insult to their injury that could not be overstated. But, at least they kind of succeeded. At least they died trying.

Reading back over this, I am ashamed that it seems like I consider Shackleton to be an idiot or something. No, no, no. How brave were he and his crew, and what odds they ultimately overcame! And what an example of leadership. Organizational Behavioral people should use the manuscript as their handbook. I so absolutely admire him, and his guys.

And the terrible, actual tragedy is that they all came through the experience alive and relatively well, but many went on to die in the first world war. That, juxtaposed with his whole "Sir" title, just left a bitter taste in my mouth. I should say the men's WWI deaths, juxtaposed with his title, AND the connotation of the honorary hogwash that is now married to "S I R" is what bugs. Sir Paul McArtney; Sir Sean Connery, Sir Mixalot . . .

August 02, 2003

Musing: Fañtasy Beisbol

2006-08-03T13:40:00.000-07:00

What the Frick!?

I have these teams on Yahoo! Fantasy Baseball. It's fun--really. One thing is that today they added all the accents and "ñ" stuff to all the Hispanic names, which was distractingly funny. Two things that are so stupid about it are these:

They changed names of people like Vinny Castilla to Vinicio Castilla. But they left "Chipper" Jones' name intact, instead of changin it back to Larry, like his mommy had it. Next thing, they'll change Ichiro Suzuki's name to the Kanji characters or whatever they're called.

But the thing that bugs me about it isn't the simple, but somewhat important addition of an accent here and there. It's the inept overflow of accents in unnecessary, incorrect positions. As far as I have understood things from my training in Español, the second-to-last syllable is almost always that which is stressed. There are a few exceptions; the others are marked with an accent for easy pronunciation reference. So my hometown of 20 years, San Jose, is technically San José. Like, the rules would have you pronounce the second part of the name "HO-seh" without the accent, which changes the pronunciation to "ho-SEH". So with the name Gonzalez, the natural pronunciation is something like "quone-SAH-les". Following the penultimate syllable rule, it is pronounced correctly. But stupid Yahoo! changes it to González, which, as far as I know, is just outright wrong. Like whom did they hire to "fix" these people's names. I happen to know from experience that in a radius of 15 miles around Yahoo! Corporate HQ are hundreds of thousands of native speakers of the language they were trying to correct. How hard could it be? Really. Anyway, it is SO distracting now, cause not only does it look like poo on my screen with all these spikey juts shooting from vowels like electric hairs, but it is incorrect to boot.

So now I must reiterate. I am basing this rant on my memory of the "rules." Maybe I'm just totally wrong. If I'm wrong, then never mind the second thing about it being annoying. If I'm right, go ahead and see this entry for the self-indulgent published, yet internal monologue that it is. K?

July 23, 2003

Musing: Conrad Shackleton

2006-08-03T13:38:00.000-07:00

I’m already done with Heart of Darkness! Not that I completed it or anything. Stacy and I were talking about it last night; it seems to be one of those books that everyone says is a masterpiece, but we just don’t get it. I’m not a literary person by any means; I don’t profess to be a qualified critic of books. In fact, I have a really short attention span, and tend to like stuff that’s immediately rewarding and commands your attention. So, it’s not like you’ll catch me reading Henry James or even Oscar Wilde (yep, I tried some of his work because of Morrissey—I’m gay) ever. But in bringing up the fact that I couldn’t get beyond the first few pages of Heart of Darkness for at least the third time in my life, I learned that my wife had the same experience. Then we talked about it.

All kinds of conspiracy theories and fake elite peer pressure schemes came out of our conversation. We figured that the whole of the Joseph Conrad progeny was involved in a brainwashing-of-college-professors plot that resulted in a trickle-down of respect for the book about the guy who goes on a river and gets shot at. Just because while we both had seen and heard a lot of high praise for the book since forever, and were convinced that, since the director of such masterpieces as “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” made a modern adaptation of it, the story must’ve been memorable. I mean, right?

But then the only missing piece to the puzzle was that we didn’t know anyone personally who had ever been in love with the book. Not to say that means anything in the world at large but it did seem curious. Maybe “so do you like Heart of Darkness?” isn’t the first question you ask your buddies when you see them every day. Maybe that’s why we’ve never heard any such praise.

Anyway, so I got to page 24 or so on my PDA, which is probably around page 5 or 6 of the book. Then I stopped, and found South by Ernest Shackleton looking like it might be a fitting sequel to The South Pole by Roald Amundsen, which I had finished earlier in the month. I was expecting the Shackleton book to be about the trek to which Amundsen affectionately referred in his story—a terrible failure to reach the pole. Instead, it is the diary of the necessarily anticlimactic attempt to traverse the Antarctic continent, following Amundsen’s conquering of Shackleton’s earlier aspiriation. So far, it has been funny, because Shackleton is obviously bitter over having lost that particular race quite handily. He makes subtle jabs at the Norwegian’s manuscript for heck’s sake—that’s how crybabylike he seems to be.

To their credit, since WWI was getting started up right around when they set sail, the crewmembers of Shackleton’s expedition put themselves, foremost, at the disposal of Her Majesty’s government. A nod from royalty and a letter from Winston Churchill later, they were fully engaged in their adventure. So now I’m with the Endurance somewhere around 60 degrees south, in the ice-cold Atlantic.

Also, I just remembered that, for some reason, the Golem really reminded me of Thea von Harbou’s Metropolis book. It was the same lasciviousness/purity juxtaposition theme throughout the book. The Golem seemed to have its own underlying social allegory, as well as holy, angelic, aristocratic, impoverished, evil, squalid elements. It was full of grotesque and tragic figures--I mean FULL of them. And I came away thinking that a knowledge of Jewish tradition--particularly of the Kabbalists (?)--would've helped, or at least significantly influenced, my understanding of the plot.

By the way, the damn thing was really tough to follow fluidly, stream-of-consciousness like dreamscapes with chapters bearing descriptive one-word titles like "Awake" being the only real compass throughout. Never mind that the whole affair was narrated by a half-mad manic depressive stone carver named Pernath!

Love always,

Eddie S. Banky

July 17, 2003

Musing: der Golem

2006-08-03T13:37:00.000-07:00

I finished the Golem last night. Man alive, what a trip. The biggest problem was the standby, "oh my golly, it was all just a dream" ending. That screwed it up for me. It was one of those stories in which the narrator could be dreaming or fully awake at any given moment, and you're never truly certain. It's got romance, murder, debauchery, Jewish ghetto taverns, and monsters. Good ingredients, all of them. The verdict is still out though.

July 15, 2003

Musing: Grey Hairs and Tony Gwynn

2006-08-03T13:36:00.000-07:00

A tubby, really talented baseball guy, but not named Ruth--a black guy, with a Welsh-sounding name. That's wierd. Or weird. Then, when he came to my hometown to coach a baseball game, I was excited, since he will be in the hall of fame in Cooperstown probably before he dies of heart disease. That's saying a lot. The only problem was, he absolutely refused to acknowledge the fans piled up behind the visiting dugout at Steven Kapp Perry Stadium. Instead of that, he just left. He walked out to the Aztecs' van and pretended he wasn't one of the game's best hitter's hitters ever. So I was really cold, and felt even colder having sat through a trouncing of the hometown cougars. Now, I didn't want to hold it against the guy, since I know he's human, and not obligated to talk to me, personally. I was somewhat unhappy with the experience, but oh well.

Still, it was a pleasant feeling to realize that he is kind of stupid, while watching one of his broadcasts. The game's best hitter nowadays is a guy named Albert Pujols, whose team, the Cardinals, was participating in the nationally televised contest to which Gwynn was adding color commentary. Pujols was flirting with the milestone of a .400 batting average (means 40 percent, but instead of saying "he's hitting in three-hundred-forty-seven thousandths of his at-bats" or cutting it down to two decimal points, baseball guys just say the number as if it's a quantity) during that game. The announcer and Gwynn were discussing the unlikely possibility that Pujols, whose average was close to .390 at the time, might become the first guy in 50 years, or something, to finish the season with .400 average.

But, since Gwynn himself came reasonably close during his career, and was an undisputed expert at the art of hitting a baseball, he was trying to give the viewers an "inside" perspective of going for the .400 pinnacle. Pujols had successfully hit in 2 of his four at-bats, meaning (duh) he was averaging .500 for the game. Gwynn chimed in with a brief discourse quite similar to the following:

"Now Pujols is coming up for his fifth at-bat, still looking at the possibility of batting .400 for the season. Now, this at-bat is key. He's 2-for-4 now, which means he's got to be thinking 'If I don't get a hit here, today's game will actually bring my average down.' Now that's the tough thing about when you're going for .400; if you're up near .400 and go 2-for-5, you will actually lose points on your average."

So now I feel a little better about him snubbing us all back a few months ago in Provo.

Also, a few days ago I noticed I had my "first" grey hair, which I promptly removed from my head--not out of vanity, but fascination. I wanted to prove to myself that it wasn't some trick of the light in the bathroom or something. So up until tonight, I thought it was an anomaly, and that my next such hairs wouldn't surface for another ten years. However, tonight I noticed that I have a ton of these things now. But I honestly think they have only appeared within the last 2 months or so. They are too long to have grown from my scalp in that period of time, but from movies like X-Men and Poltergeist, I have been given the impression that normal hairs can become grey ones quite spontaneously. Since all movies are true, I am guessing that I recently either sucked lots of magnetic superpowers from Ian McKellan on top of the Statue of Liberty, or I rolled around in a tub full of jelly and smoked dope with Craig T. Nelson.

July 10, 2003

Musing: Mars Blackmon gets bitch-slapped.

2006-08-03T13:35:00.000-07:00

Spike Lee, the anti-Semite black supremacist talent deficient loudmouth wienie, actually tried to sue a cable network planning to call its new channel "Spike TV." No, I am serious. Hang on—no, seriously; stop laughing. The guy is more successful and influential in his own head than most people are in the collective mind of millions. I’m not really sure how to address this little turd’s audacious ego. He actually filed suit, alleging that somehow "Spike TV: The First Network for Men" was referring to him, and would adversely affect his image. He should be so lucky.

So maybe the railroad workers should file suit because they hammer spikes all day, and the pro volleyball circuit should file suit for their interest in the term. Billy Idol would be more than justified in filing charges hoping to protect the good name of his hairdo, and 12 million bulldogs might have a serious class action case to be made. Think of all the money!

Maybe the worst though, is how it has been portrayed now that the judge has essentially laughed them out of court. He changed the stakes by requiring "Mars Blackmon" to post a $2.5 million bond, which was naturally without the loser’s means. Clearly this whole thing was just Lee wadding up pieces of paper in his mouth, blowing them through a straw, hoping they’d stick to something.

But Yahoo! had the freaking retarded lameness to headline the story "Spike Lee, Viacom settle suit over 'Spike TV'". That’s right. Spike Lee sues Viacom/TNN to prevent their use of the name "Spike TV," and the case is smitten, it being determined that Spike Lee is a world-class dickhead. The entire reason for, and aim of, the suit is completely lost, and it earns the euphemism "settlement" by Yahoo! A casual read of the story reveals that Yahoo! or whoever decided upon the title simply chose to quote Lee’s counsel. Nice "news" story.

Saying Viacom and Spike Lee settled is like saying the United States came to an agreement with Saddam after long deliberation. It’s like calling the 1996 Super Bowl a draw. You might as well call the famous battle "Custer’s Détente." Yep, and the Enola Gay delivered a handshake of truce.

July 8, 2003

Mundane: Fish

2006-08-03T13:33:00.000-07:00

The dark-blue death has visited my aquarium, conveyed through the water by a trio of tetras.

On Saturday morning at around 1 am, I made a trip to Walmart to pick up the new Harry Potter for Stacy. While there, I decided that my three neon tetras--a species of schooling fish--needed two or three buddies. At some point, I made the mor(t)al mistake of basing my fish-type decision on the asking price. There were $1.60 and $1.90 tetra breeds available, and I chose to go with the cheaper ones. But due to irony or something like that, the lady who had to catch my fishes for me turned out to be retarded, to the point of being unable to distinguish between, or outwit either of the breeds. It being 2 am at that point, I decided to tell her to stop at three fish and--despite the appearance that not one of them was of the variety I had requested--I took them up to the register, and blew it.

After getting home, I realized that despite paying for three $1.90 ones, I had come back with two of them, and one $1.60 fish. The morning after introducing these guys to the other fish, I began to realize that it would be the most expensive $1.60 fish for which I paid $1.90 that I could have possibly ever bought. Mostly cause it was dead, and one of its eyeballs was gone--probably down the gullet of one of the other fishes. After neglecting to remove the corpse before going to work, I was unable to find it when I returned. So probably it had been mostly devoured between the leftover roommates.

Later on that evening, I noticed that one of the neon tetras was acting strange--kind of drifting around with the current and doing slow flips. It was obviously alive, but just barely. I mentioned it to Stacy, who then mentioned the OTHER dead neon that was stuck in one of our plastic plants. Immediately, I recovered the corpse, the soon-to-be corpse, and the probably soon-to-be other neon corpse, for euthanasiatic purposes. They all three soon after gave up the ghost. Later on that evening, the two remaining newcomers (the legitimately $1.90 fancy ones) started making goofy gestures at the other fish, so they too became tropical icecubes.

After noticing that one of my three-plus-year-old (original tank denizen) albino corydoras* was short 3 and 1/2 fins, I began to panic, and told Stacy that, if the following morning any more fish had died, I would be forced to euthanize the lot of them. That's four corydoras, two danios and four african dwarf frogs (down from five, after one of the poor guys tried to make his second suicidal dash to who the hell knows where, and was found engulfed in hungry ants, just behind our front door) that we'd have to do away with. Luckily, it was--and so far has remained--unnecessary.

Goooooooo-ooooo-oooo FISH!

*[ed: He's still alive and "well" as of August 2006]

June 25, 2003

Mundane: Seedy Provo

2006-08-03T13:32:00.000-07:00

211 In Progress

So I finally got my own taste of the seedy side of this urban jungle known as Provo, Utah. Oooh! Ahhhh!

First, let me say that it could've been much worse, and I'm not trying to "whine" about it. But if you happen to see a couple of Mexicans in a gold/tan colored sedan--one of which wears a pony tail--with a JVC Sh99 detachable faceplate in their hands, please let me know.

Tonight at around 9 pm, someone knocked on my third story front door. It was a neighbor couple from two floors down. The wife had seen some non-me guy in my car looking shady, then bolting upon seeing her there. He hopped into a sedan and was driven off by his pal. They called the cops immediately, and then came to tell me.

So since I'm smart it wasn't as bad as it could've been, but since I'm dumb, it was much worse than it probably should've been. You know how you can buy car decks with detachable faceplates, for added security? Well, they don't work if you don't remove them when you leave the car--duh!

But, since my car almost never contains retail audio CDs, but instead MP3 CDs, I didn't lose anything on that front. Unfortunately, they apparently grabbed the faceplate and pocketed it before setting to work on the stereo itself. They were discovered before they could do much with the head unit, so that was/is intact. Plus, they were very careful and kind to the interior and console area of the dash, and there is probably not a single bit of damage--only some yanked out bolts and stuff.

They broke the rear passenger little triangular mindow to unlock the door, and enter the car. So the losses & damages en toto will likely be just the cost to replace the window and any replacement of the stereo equipment we can afford to do. I believe I can buy just a faceplate, but it will likely cost $100 or more. So it may not be worth it.

Maybe I will write more later, but I just wanted to nail this down while it is still fresh (like 100 minutes fresh). Pretty lame, but I'm not too upset. Damn, crime-ridden Provo.

February 11, 2003

Musing: Peter T's Letter

2006-08-03T13:31:00.000-07:00

Dear Tommy,

I am researching sexual abuse because I may have been sexually abused when I was a boy living with my disturbed grandma. If you don't believe me, just listen to my music. Like in that one "rock opera" I had the main character get sexually abused by his uncle. What other explanation could there be? I must've been abused also.

So anyway, that's why I have been spending so much time on child porn websites. It's for research because I want to put a stop to this terrible child porn and sex abuse thing. And it's why I even gave my credit card number to a child porn site, because I hear that the more you pay them, the less porn they will offer.

In case you were curious, this is on the heels of my recent prostitution research. This has been an ongoing study on my part and recently came to an end, coincidentally, when the police knocked on my foggy passenger window two nights ago. I have since decided that I have gathered sufficient empirical data to complete my "Hooker Studies" degree.

Anyway, if you see me in the news for the next several months, it will no doubt be in connection with my painstaking research in one of many "fields of sin". I certainly would hope you will appreciate my hard work and their fruits. Be on the lookout for my work aimed at abolishing elderly rape, as well as ending teen pregnancy and banning assualt weapons.

Sincerely yours,

Peter T.

January 14, 2003

Mundane: A Job!!

2006-08-03T13:29:00.000-07:00

Today was the best day I have had in ages.

At long (expletive)ing last, I have found a job. I am doing my best to restrain my feelings of joy, because, having become so accustomed to disappointment, it is hard to expect anything but the absolute worst. So for the time being, I am trying to live as if I won't be employed come Monday. It probably sounds pessimistic, but to me it's only cautious.

The stuff that makes my joy difficult to restrain mostly has to do with the goodness of the job. It is by no means THE PERFECT JOB, but it certainly shares many of its traits. After spending only half of today immersed in much of what my job will entail, I am already comfortable with everyone with whom I am to work (including my boss), I like the company, the environment, the dress code, the hours, and generally, the attitude of the establishment.

It is a corporate-ish job, but with a small group of friendly people (I am employee number 13 - aww yeeeah), and with the expected accompanying attitude. Stacy and I were concerned about hours and transportation, but it turns out I can basically determine my own hours, which absolutely resolves both issues. I hate ties and white collar bull dookie dress-up, and my boss actually told me to "dress down" today. "Jeans and t-shirt," he tells me.

The place is located literally yards from the freeway, one exit north of the one I take to go home. It is situated in a place that opens up both the east and west views of the mountains around my homeland. The building stands by itself at the entrance to an industrial park, where there is scarcely any traffic.

My boss, the guy who is supposed to be egotistical and controlling and unreasonable, is already kindly welcoming my input into the manner of operation for what we do. He told me today that he looks forward to being trained by ME in things in which I have superior skills or knowledge. I am already "friends" with the three who will be my closest "co-worker" types, and I never once had to pretend I was stuffy and homosexual.

I could go on and on. So, as you can see, I am having trouble allowing for the possibility that things can continue in this way for much longer. I'm sure my cautious attitude will slowly evaporate as it becomes more believable, and more consistent in my life. I look forward to that time.

For now, I am just so giddy, as is my poor, longsuffering wife. Thank goodness. She has had to bear so much due to my shortcomings, and it is wonderful to watch her countenance change significantly, in just a few days.

Hopefully now I will be more inclined to write more on Xanga! No promises. Anyway, thanks for reading (everyone) and commenting (regularwriter) over the last while.

Woo Hoo!!

January 04, 2003

Opine: Hans Blitch

2006-08-03T13:28:00.000-07:00

What! Huh? You mean to say that the UN inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction? Well, I think we'd all agree it can be confidently stated that Iraq must not have any. What other possible explanation is there?

Alls I'm sayin is, "Hey Hans Blix, I've got a way of hiding bridges I'd like to sell you."

December 27, 2002

Mundane: Percy

2006-08-03T13:27:00.000-07:00

Believe it, short human. I am back for a moment or two. First I have to say God bless America. It's just too bad they don't run the nation based on the square-mileage that is occupied by the "real" America. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has noticed this, but this country is divided into two parts:

01) A few dozen scattered square miles of big, smelly, crime-and-poverty-ridden cities and their inhabitants who rally for such noble causes as protecting the right to suck out baby brains through a straw AND

02) The rest of the country.

Anyway, I am in this really hot new band named Percy Colclough and the Religious Girls, and there's a site at Iuma.com dedicated to it. More and better songs are forthcoming, but for now there are a few originals and a cover of a song by a sometime reader of this blog with these initials: CLW (formerly CLC). Check it out if ya wanna.

November 16, 2002

Musing: Bushball

2006-08-03T13:26:00.000-07:00

First, I gotta say Hmmmmmm Baby! How 'bout those Giants! Finally, they blow past that stubborn divisional playoff and especially, those dern Atlanta Braves. How sweet 'tis. Hey, I like the pattern of all the underdogs beating the favorite. Considering the Giants have the worst record of any of the remaining teams, I like their chances! But I gotta say, I honestly think the Cardinals have the best chance to go all the way. But Go Gigantes, nonetheless.

Last, what the freak was up with George Bush's wussy concession to the nation speech? I thought he was gonna nail things down, not tiptoe backwards and acquiesce. I now am seriously wondering about his fortitude with this Saddam thing. He's left so much room for interpretation and equivocation. Man alive, I just don't get it. Help me Obi Wan--you're my only hope.

Laster, I'm gonna tidy up my final appendectomy chapter and post it here ASAP, so please watch for it.

October 08, 2002

Opine: Barbra Streisand is Really Really Really Stupid

2006-08-03T13:25:00.000-07:00

While Babs "Officially Agreed Upon as Talented" Streisand has recently taken to splitting time between misspelling Gephardt in love letters to the congressman (unbelievably unheeded, incidentally), misattributing doggerel as Shakespearean verse, and extracontextually quoting every Dem's fave dashing philanderer, JFK, again with the commandeering of his "wisdom" for her vapid oral flatulence, I have come across another interesting item.

In a recent column a smart guy named Charles Krauthammer offers an as-legitimately-analogous-to-the-current-situation-as-possible quote from the dead Fortunate Son whose Lewinski was named Monroe, using it as a contrast with what his date-drowning ugly (but non-swimming, apparently) duckling brother has been recently puking out in public.

In the midst of the Cuban missile thing, here’s what he said: "This nation is prepared to present its case against the Soviet threat to peace, and our own proposals for a peaceful world, at any time and in any forum--in the Organization of American States, in the United Nations, or in any other meeting that could be useful--without limiting our freedom of action." From an address to the nation, Oct. 22, 1962

I don’t paste this quote here as anything wise or sage or inordinately sensible. I only put it here because it is the opposite of what Babs and Friends, in hopelessly attempting to simultaneously laugh at our idiot president AND cite their profound fear of him as an aspiring dictator, are defecating all over America’s media outlets (read Public Access for Socialists Channels) right this very minute. JFK was mostly dumb, had trouble speaking coherently, and was the epitome of the RASSs (Rich Anglo Saxon Sectarians) that Liberals in America still deny are the real-life cultural elite entity trying to prescribe its ubermoral will on America today. This quote simply illustrates that back when Babs’ Peanut Gallery had their lib at the helm, national sovereignty as paramount to Americans’ freedom was A-OK!

October 05, 2002

Musing: John Denver

2006-08-03T13:24:00.000-07:00

Below is an attempted empathetic ode to John Denver and his ultimate sadness. Feel free to read it backwards if the normal way is boring you.

Re: L. Bass: abler?

(Ere he nods "no")
SS El Niño? or creative NASA fool?
A god?
A dog?
Aloof as an Evita?
"ER: CROONIN’ LESSONS DONE HERE"

September 25, 2002

Opine: Sowell

2006-08-03T13:21:00.000-07:00

I am beginning to be so moved by some things I've been reading that I think I'll make it a practice to quote some of the common sense I find, usually from the pen of syndicated opinion columnists. Today's is a substantial section of Thomas Sowell's Sept 19th essay called "One-uppers versus survival."

"Being one-up is so important to some people that it colors the way they see every issue and can even over-ride concern for their own safety in a world of international terrorism. One of the ways of being one-up is to jump on the bandwagon of the latest fads, like being non-judgmental or supporting multiculturalism and deconstruction. These clever sophistries are the self-indulgences of sheltered and comfortable people.

Does anyone suffering the agonies of some terrible disease question whether what he is experiencing is real or just a matter of "perceptions" that are "socially constructed"? Does a mother whose child has died in her arms question whether that is of any greater significance than swatting a mosquito? Do people who risk their lives trying to escape from some brutal dictatorship and reach American soil regard all cultures as "equally valid"?

People can define things inside their own heads any way they want to. It is only when they pretend to be talking about things outside their heads, in the real world, that they spread intellectual confusion and social chaos. Many a foolish policy is based on trying to make the real world match the picture inside someone's head.

Since all people and all cultures are equal -- inside the heads of the one-uppers -- any disparities in the real world are seen as injustices to be corrected. Therefore, if a high school punishes more black males than Asian females for misconduct, then apparently that school must be racist and should be sued.

Differences in income, mortality rates, unemployment, and innumerable other things are all automatically suspect as evils of society, because different groups cannot possibly be behaving differently, since they are equal inside the heads of the one-uppers. Countries that are poor cannot possibly be less productive, but must have been "exploited" somehow.

People who think this way are especially dangerous when we are facing mortal perils, such as international terrorism. Since there is moral equivalence inside their heads, their conclusion is that we must have done something wrong to make terrorists hate us.

It will never occur to such people that the kind of envy and resentments which they themselves promote incessantly may be behind the hatred from those who are lagging far behind the progress of the West and who can achieve significance only by destruction."

EXACTLY.

September 20, 2002

[ed: Turns out this was my first (and only?) time actually "blogging" according to the accepted definition]

Mundane: Walmart & Amazon

2006-08-03T13:20:00.000-07:00

Maybe I'm wrong, but apparently I'm supposed to be literally listening to whatever I post at this VERY moment. No dice on that count.

Since his record company ain't doing it, I must drop an ad for the smaller of Frank Black & the Catholics concurrent August releases. The other one is like 17 tracks, called Black Letter Days.

Oh well, Amazon sux right now, so I can't add the recommendation just now.

----------------

Wal*Mart has these really cool Coca-Cola stainless steel insulated cups for $3. It's worth it--I promise. Morrissey is gonna be on Craig Kilborn tonight. Ben Stein was able to a) spell M-O-R-R-I-S-S-E-Y correctly from his brain and b) pick out the Morrissey (really the Smiths) song title out of four choices, "Girlfriend In A Coma." I know, I know, it's not so serious, but fun nonetheless.

People who think Meat actually is Murder are preaching to an omnivorous choir. Go tell it to the King of the Beasts or cry your Crocodile tears before some--I dunno--crocodile.

So I was thinking some weird thought about how I was buying "treatments" for my car's gaskets, and its fuel system AND my flaky scalp. Like all three are really the same product, but just intended for different applications.

Then I imagined what would happen if I poured generic Head N' Shoulders into my gas tank, and then showered concentrated gas treatment onto my head. I figure it'd make little difference, except my scalp wouldn't smell as bad as that damn nasty medicine scent the Johnsons invented.

September 12, 2002

Opine: God Bless America

2006-08-03T13:19:00.000-07:00

God bless America. God bless those who suffered so terribly, and those who did what they could. God bless our president, and anyone else who isn't in the business of pissing on the graves of those whom the mentally disturbed pussies who are most certainly having continual sex with 70 times 70 virgin goats under the grimacing eye of the devil himself (a guy who, incidentally, was wont to possess the body of Mohammed, himself now and again) slaughtered so mindlessly, with numbminded cowardice.

Let us not make the mistake of thinking Saddam and his crackpot minions aren't the 21st century sequel to the third reich, itself, and its mud-lipped wannabe Marx brother leader. Let us not succumb to the numb lulluby of stupid American liberals and European leaders (and God forbid, the fricking UN), hoping, presumably, for Bin Laden or Hussein to send a courtesy cable to this effect: "You Allah-forsaken infidel Jew-loving white-skinned devils, we hereby proclaim that we plan, on ______ 11th, 20__, to invade or otherwise attack any and all possible links to freedom, democracy and not mutilating female genitalia-based nations. Please be warned. We recommend that you bomb us posthaste. Kindly, Hussy and Bin."

Here's to the sudden dumbstrickening of the likes of terror loving enemies of freedom like Peter Jennings (how 'bout taking a hop over the Hudson back to your homeland, "America light," and planting your nose firmly back in the royal rear of she whose kingdom allowed you onto her premises in the first place) and his NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NPR, etc, cohorts and Robert Altman and Alec Baldwin and Nelson Mandela (yes, that's right, MANDELA) and the United Nations (the predominant form of government among its members being a dictatorship) and all other Saddam/terrorist apologists.

The most fitting conceivable tribute to the dead of 09/11/01 would be the strategic, but relentless, shellacking of Saddam & his chemical and radioactive weapons, his armies, his interests, and any significant parties sympathetic to the cause of this, or any other militant Islamic extremists. Supporters of the cause of these people, both here and abroad, should be tried as traitors and subject to the fullest penalties under laws.

What have we learned from the event? These are the sort of memorials that actually MEAN something. There's a problem. Any doubt about this was irrefutably erased with the deaths of thousands of innocent human beings and the demoralization of an entire nation, a year ago today.

To sit on our hands is to wipe our rears with the charred corpses of the heroic men and women of Flight 93 who died heroically grounding the plane destined for the Capitol Building. To close our eyes to what still prevails in the Middle East is to spit on the remains of the emergency workers who fearlessly marched to their certain deaths inside that steel death trap.

And in the spirit of the preemptive strike, let me just say that I'm proud to reinforce the American stereotype that is supposed to have contributed to this idiotic attack. It is this belief and attitude that makes and keeps America THE country that it is. Sure we could relegate ourselves to an ingredient in the mulligan stew of the "international community," but our identity and role as a world leader is too important to squander in favor of satisfying the vice-chancellor of Luxemburg who is "troubled" by our policies.

Etc.

If you've got a fitting tribute to the dead of a year ago, feel free to add it here. Otherwise you needn't apply. I seriously will censor what I don't like. What's that I hear about freedom of speech? That's exactly what I'm talking about. Yeppers.

September 10, 2002

Opine: The resurfacing of Jimmy Hoffa or Tie goes to the dumber

2006-08-03T13:18:00.000-07:00

I was told add something to my Xanga.

One thing is, since my "I love baseball" post, some serious stuff has happened. One of "civilized" man's most dubious creations, the labor union, reared its dastardly head, and shot laser beams at my beloved game. Seems like maybe the biggest problem with at least the MLBPA union is a lack of accountability. No single player has to answer for his greed (the league minimum salary is more than ten times the average US household income; the average player salary is more than $2 million) or general disregard for Joe Baseball Fan. The dual-purpose sword of the organization allows players to say things like "If it were up to me I wouldn't do it this way" and causes naive, hopeful fans like me to actually believe them.

But by their mere membership in this organization, they are "guilty" by association of anything the union spews out. It seems kind of ironic that the offspring of an institution whose original purpose was to hold "big business" accountable for its inhumanity, has fully revolved onto itself, enjoying the same indemnity that is usually associated with the corporate identity (see Enron and friends). When it comes to averting the blamethrowing point of a single extended index finger, there is clear strength in numbers. Anyway, the almost strike isn't even what I intended to write about.

Here's one part of my previous baseball thing:

"Some allow for some sort of overtime; many of these actually permit the outcome of a tie! A game with no winner! Why would you even put on a uniform? Just flip a coin (but one that is an inch thick, so there’s a fairly good chance it will land on its edge)."

Sure enough, like hours later, baseball's all-star game ended in a tie, mostly due to political correctness, and crappy planning. Then, only days after that, my team, the Giants, officially tied the Atlanta Braves in a ballgame. Talk about a slap 'cross the face. I hadn't really researched the possibility, but apparently every few years, the elements or scheduling or other problems conspire to make it "necessary" to officially call a game a tie.

Normally when Mother Nature gets involved, the rules, as currently established, allow for means to avoid a tie. Once the game exceeds five innings, it can be "called" at the umpires' discretion, and its results will be official. If poor weather or other circumstances make completing five innings impossible, the game is rescheduled. But in this instance, the umps screwed up, in my opinion.

It was something like a one-run game when the rain started falling. But the Giants then made it 3-0, I believe, in the later innings. By this time the rain was virtually coming down in sheets. In my opinion, once the Braves completed their half of the inning, the game should've been stopped. Instead, however, the umps kept it going for another couple innings. Robb Nen stunk it up in the Braves’ half of the ninth, and the game became tied. During the tenth inning, the umps "delayed" the game due to rain. Ninety or so minutes later, the game was officially called a tie.

The caveat is that if the game's result will have possible playoff ramifications, it will actually be replayed. So, for instance, if the Giants play the season's final game and are 1/2 game ahead of, or behind, a team for a playoff spot, the game will be replayed. So the silver lining to this embarrassment to baseball is that the official tie is still marked with an asterisk as an aberration to baseball. It's not really a part of the rules.

So that's one thing. Overall, I am at least mildly disenchanted with the game that previously I lauded almost unconditionally. Bye.

September 01, 2002

Musing: Lolita

2006-08-03T13:17:00.000-07:00

I'm not the hugest fan of the Kubrick Lolita from the 60s. I mean, it is so freaking humorous, and I love the performances by the four lead characers. But ultimately it's just too saddening and creepy, when you get away from the humor. Anyway, I just finished watching one of my favorite acting performances in all moviedom. It's when James Mason reads aloud the love declaration written to him by Shelley Winters. Hard to explain it, but he does the most amazing job of giving off this superior, yet empathetic, but somehow maniacal air. I just love it. It's so tragic and so hilarious.

August 19, 2002

Opine: Encroachment, number five Humanity, masochistic self-penalty, repay in goose-down.

2006-08-03T13:16:00.000-07:00

Here’s another whiny little rant about something on my mind. Although it kinda has a "thesis" and a conclusion, I realize it’s incomplete. Like, I bring up certain points, but then don’t fully realize the thought. I guess the idea was to get out some frustration. So following are a bunch of words that I put on my computer during the last 90 minutes. Hopefully, you catch my drift sorta.

There’s this overlooked dichotomy of thought surrounding humanity’s self-loathers and enemies of technological/industrial progress. These are folks who are morally opposed to "exploitation" of natural resources (including animal-kind) and tend to also relegate the Euro-Saxon’s role to that of morally-corrupt conqueror and land-rapist. There are so many aspects to this kind of thinking that are beyond laughable.

What got me thinking on this, in this particular instance, was this show on Discovery with some guy studying these "flying" white sharks. The sharks would hunt sea lions off an island coast by launching themselves bullet-like toward the surface-wading lions, often escaping the swaying saltwater altogether and briefly hovering as high as twelve feet in the air.

During the show, a shark began exhibiting this ability, tossing a panicked sea lion helpless through the air. The guy commented along these lines: "This is very difficult to watch, and, although this is the way of nature, I can’t help but root for our little sea lion." He eventually bolstered his words with action, illustrating his asinine allegiance by actually pulling the injured sea lion onto his ship, then boating him to safety, and setting him free.

He had been preaching against the perception that the great white is an aggressive, man-eating creature, chastising the notion that fisherman find ways of justifying their harvesting of the sharks. So during the same 15 minutes that the man nobly, even sanctimoniously, preached shark conservation, he arbitrarily allowed himself to resort to an action that, if adopted by every other weak-stomached wannabe marine biologist pussy, would doubtless lead to the extinction of the very animal he was professing to try and protect. This little hypocritical episode reminded me of why people like this fella make me queasy.

Most thinking people generally subscribe to one of two theories, or some combination of the two: Humans evolved most recently from apes, and originally from some microorganism on earth how ever many millions of years ago, like its fellow carnivorous animals, or a Supreme Being quickened our minds at some arbitrary moment, and we became humans, an independent animal-like entity. In both instances, we have become the absolute end of the food chain, and are now the king of all "beasts." In the latter instance, God has given us dominion over flora and fauna, to use for our sustenance and enjoyment, not to be squandered, but to wisely mete, born out of a spirit of gratitude. In the former, scientifically-based instance, we are in a nearly identical situation, but by virtue of what Darwin called "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest."

In either case, the homosapien is currently endowed with a mind that has guaranteed supremacy and superiority to all other life on our planet. You might think of disease and bacteria as contrary examples, and while you’d be making something of a point, you’d get the following answer from me: "When a particular virus or bacterium has caused, or has even appeared to be imminently able to cause, complete humankind obliteration, then we’ll talk."

But somehow, and sometime, this self-deprecating view of ourselves as humans has become terribly acceptable. When one of our distant animal relatives, the beaver, damns up a creek to support his ability to survive, it’s a part of nature. When man does it, it’s rape. A lioness and her buddies tackle and heartlessly, often tortuously, begin eating an antelope alive, and it’s all part of the food chain. Ranchers breed and quickly and mercifully execute and process cattle for meat, and it’s barbarism.

Listen, ladies and gentleman, either we are a product of evolution or we aren’t. Either everything is "the way of nature" or nothing is. You can’t arbitrary assign Mother Nature’s will, neatly depositing your pet (excuse the pun) zoological phenomena in the "circle of life" acceptability bin, while frivolously relegating humanity into shame-on-you oblivion, just cause it gives you warm fuzzies.

There’s also a sort of intermediate version of the same hypocritical duality of thinking. By some forfeiting of intelligence, it has been determined that there’s such a thing as an indigenous human, or more accurately, a human who was "there first" and therefore has some sort of moral claim on land. These races, deemed natives by self-hating WASPs, also necessarily have somehow a truer understanding of, or relationship with, "Mother Earth." This despite the fact that in a comparatively miniscule amount of time, we "white devils" have developed an infinitely more precise, replicable, explainable, hyper-specialized understand of nature and Her many wonders.

Whereas dizzy anthropologists tend to consider natives’ quaint superstitious explanations for natural phenomena to be "important" or "remarkable" or even superior, the inconvenient facts, as gleaned by modern discovery and development, cast a light on such traditions as to leave ‘em looking outright stupid. I’m not advocating the forced abolition of all culture, or a mass "make-fun-of" session aimed at people who think a volcano’s eruption is because the god Rumpelstilskin is pissed off for not receiving his annual virgin sacrifice. I’m just opposed to thinking that wrong beliefs are supposed to be respected or worse, revered, for no other reason than their antiquity.

I hate the idea of "understanding" the belief system that meant my mom had to endure physical assaults while living in the Middle East, because her face wasn’t covered. I hate being told to "appreciate" a tribal tradition in which men are often permanently handicapped, or even killed, as a result of some "important" rite-of-passage. Why should I appreciate something that is so utterly barbaric, and simply absurd?

It reminds me of an argument I had about the music of Sting. Someone had the mind-blowing tenacity to make this assertion: "Well, you may not be a fan of his music, but you at least have to respect him as a songwriter." Um, huh? So despite the fact that the man hasn’t written or sung a single remarkable song in his entire career, I am somehow obliged to offer him even a tiny measure of respect? I think it’s this idea of "tolerance" and "acceptance" being thoroughly propagated in first world thought that is to blame for such illogical, invertebrate, wishy-washy wussiness, now being acceptable. To me, it’s sickening.

So my way of working would have me bowing in Japan and doing my best to adhere to the traditions of those in whose community I am a guest. I might wink or even smile at the long-necked teenager with the 6-inch clay disk extending her horribly maimed lower lip. Just as I shake my head at the Philadelphia street performer who lifts 20 pound weights hung from studs plunged through his breasts, I scratch my head at the idea of making your infant population wear a board bound flat on their heads, to intentionally misshape the skeletal casing of their most integral organ. But I can’t personally conscience the idea of a laugh, or even a nod, when I’m shown a plaster cast of the horribly disfigured foot of a dutiful Asian woman, whose culture conscionably permitted her crippling mutilation.

And yes, I’m a conservationist, but I at least aim to measure my opinions on such issues. If a certain order of a particular phylus of a family of a species of a community of a particular plumed sparrow (I don’t know the correct order for all these divisions of animalia, so pretend I did a good job of essentially saying, "a really specific, tiny, almost contrived, variant of a common animal") is endangered by the encroachment of mankind, I say make a sensible attempt to accommodate the animal’s survival. But if this means a significant impact on the quality of life for man, than, unfortunately for the bird, he’s SOL. No natural product of our mammalian species will suddenly become unnatural, when it happens to adversely affect a less significant natural product.

And this concussion is the most generous than can possibly come from any earthly animal. No other species is equipped mentally to evaluate its level of devastation to its fellow life forms on a level even remotely similar to that of humanity. So, ironically (at least as far as green-goofed logic goes) we are the lightest-stepping, most accommodating partakers in the natural-selection process that Darwin, or anyone else, has even known. So get off your own backs!

I do happen to feel morally responsible for being kind to my fellow beings, including less significant animals, such as cats and dogs. I can’t even watch those shows with the animal-cruelty cops going around arresting these unscrupulous excuses for humans, who have no problem with neglecting the very animals who blindly, loyally, depend upon them for attention, and even survival. People who litter make me so freaking mad. SUVs bug me too. But I think the people who engage in these sorts of things are the same people who cut you off on the freeway or double park their Jettas. They’re just among the worst our race has to offer. They’re self-absorbed and inconsiderate. I guess this is one element on which I’m hoping Darwin’s natural selection will eventually take its toll.

August 19, 2002

Musing: Co-Inky-Dink

2006-08-03T13:14:00.000-07:00

Hopefully this'll be short, cause it's a brief thought.

I really can't stand a popular new aspect to a worldview that's gaining more acceptance, for no real reason. Summed up with this phrase: "There's no such thing as a coincidence."

The reality, as born out by history and statistics, is that almost everything that seems like it couldn't be coincidence, IS just that. Half the time it's cause we wear blinders--intentionally or not--that allow us to ignore other factors, and lean toward assigning "otherworldly" or conspiratory responsibility to merely coincidental events.

Like someone gets sick to their stomach on Sept 10, 2001, so they think they're psychic. What they have ignored is the six hundred forty-one other times they've felt the same way but the next day nobody crashed a pair of jetliners into the World Trade Center towers. That and the person arbitrarily ASSIGNS a connection between the two occurrences. And, to the person, it MUST mean they're psychic.

This sort of thing gets annoying when someone who didn't board a plane that ended up crashing looks for a miraculous catalyst to their deciding not to fly. Sometimes it even means God was watching over them. Talk about absolutely disparaging the memory of all those whom God didn't watch over!

Even stuff like every house on the same street next to a toxic dump has a kid who develops leukemia. Obviously there seems to be, and easily could be, a connection. But people seem not to understand that this sort of thing happens ALL THE TIME, and it is rarely anything but coincidence. It’s called a statistical cluster. Just as a random list of ten numbers might yield 0123456789 in that order, you also might get all 2s. You might flip a coin 25 times without ever getting "heads." It is uncommon, but it is NOT a conspiracy.

I say all this, I guess, because I think that, while they occupy people plenty, such things as superstitions and paranoia really weaken people. Things like faith in a higher power are ok, but not when they paralyze people’s ability to just basically function. You look at the Christian Scientists (I think that’s who they are) who let their ailing kids die waiting for God to save them. These are the kind of things that make me mad.

There is not a reason for everything. Good things happen to bad people and vice-versa. Not only is there such a thing as coincidence, but few oddities are attributable to anything else.

August 13, 2002

Musing: Ode To The Grassy Diamond

2006-08-03T13:12:00.000-07:00

I'm in love with the game of baseball.

It's been one of those things that, if you don't like baseball, I might say, "you just don't get it." This is because I have never had a good way to explain what it is, exactly, that makes the game so endearing.

But there are tangible, specific, aspects that can at least add to the case to be made for America's pastime.

One of those is the fact that unlike any game I can think of, you are never out of it, until there are 3 outs in your half of the ninth inning, and you have fewer runs than the opponent. No other major sport or "ballgame" allows for a comparable promise of a truer realization of the adage, "it ain’t over till the fat lady sings."

Most major sports are bound by some sort of timer. Some allow for some sort of overtime; many of these actually permit the outcome of a tie! A game with no winner! Why would you even put on a uniform? Just flip a coin (but one that is an inch thick, so there’s a fairly good chance it will land on its edge).

I’ll admit that perhaps the most exciting sports moment is when a soccer match is decided on penalty kicks. Talk about pressure. A full hundred or so minutes of constant running and dribbling and falling and grimacing, all essentially thrown out in favor of a best-of-five kick-off. It’s enough to make you crap your pants. But even in soccer, a team can become essentially eliminated from possible victory long before the game is officially over, and can be mathematically excluded from possibly winning (20 seconds of penalty time remain—a team is down 5 goals).

This is similar for most other major sports. In basketball, if you’re down 7 points with a second left, the game is over. In football, if you have 30 seconds left and you need 4 touchdowns, you cannot win. In hockey the same sort of restriction applies. Golf comes kinda close, in that you aren’t technically out of it necessarily, unless many criteria are met. If you’ve already amassed a 75 through 17 holes and the leader’s in the clubhouse with a 75, you cannot win. However, even if the leader is on the green, with a two-foot put to finish at 75, and you’re at 74 through 17, you are still mathematically in the match.

But unlike baseball, in golf it never happens that a guy is down by 11 strokes with one hole to go and the leader shoots a twelve-duple bogey while the guy behind him hits a hole-in-one. In baseball, that does occur, but not in golf. Tennis gets even closer, because a guy can lose his first 17 games in a best of five match and still technically win, and it has nothing (as far as I know) to do with time. He’s still in it, and he cannot be mathematically or even practically eliminated until he has lost his final point of his third lost set. Huge such comebacks have occurred, but are extremely rare.

In baseball, a comparable miracle occurs quite often, essentially due to its make-up. A team could be unable to hit a particular pitcher for seven or even eight full innings and the pitcher might need to leave the game due to a pitch count, injury or just fatigue. The deficient team may have the relief pitcher’s number and be able to throw together 6 or 7 or even 10 runs, and come back to win the game. This is a property of baseball alone.

There are many other aspects, subtleties of the game, that lend it so much beauty in my eyes. Many of them are the lengthy chains of minor events and decisions that ultimately determine the game. Most of these fail to make the box scores. Often a 2-2 fastball that squeaks by the batter, just catching the outer black of home plate, is called a ball by the umpire. The pitcher looks in protractedly, then shakes his head. The team’s manager hollers obscenities from the dugout, then brandishes a knee, and finally he fully walks onto the infield grass, still berating the prideful ump. The profane lambasting continues, and the manager is tossed from the game. A pitch later, a baseball lands in the right-center field bleachers, and the guy who appeared to have struck out looking, and lost the game—he is the hero. His team has won.

So tonight I witnessed such a spectacle, which made me remember why the game is so great. The Oakland Athletics, 57-0 when leading after 8 innings, had their backs to the wall in Boston. With two outs and two men on, in the bottom of the ninth, his team leading 3.2, the As closer, Billy Koch, was facing perhaps the best pure RBI man in the game today, in Manny Ramirez.

Manny eventually saw his pitch, and hacked mightily, sending it soaring into right-center, a few hundred feet to the left of the spot at which he had, earlier in the game, deposited another home run. Center fielder Terrence Long galloped diagonally, straight toward the fence. The Beantown faithful were on their collective feet, their arms hanging over them in the air.

The ball began its descent over the 4-foot high outfield fence as an excited Boston policeman howled for joy. And just when it appeared that the BoSox had handed the As their first loss in 57 games with a ninth inning lead, just when it seemed certain that Massachusetts’ most prolific slugger had sent the Oakland team back to their hotel 5-3 losers, just when Billy Koch began to hang his head in embarrassment, Mr. Long literally reached OVER the outfield wall, and stole Manny Ramirez’ glory, right from out of the air. Literally snatched the destined homer back into the field. The out had been made, and the game was over.

Baseball is a game of so many things: comebacks, timing, strategy, inches, luck, power, speed. Tonight when I saw Terence Long seem to commandeer fate, itself, and manipulate it according to his whim, I received a slap in the face, and an intangible reminder of why baseball is the greatest game ever played.

PS: I apologize for this goopy, gayified language, but baseball seems to bring out the phony wannabe poet in me.

August 08, 2002