| Sunday, September 1, 2002 |
00:14 - Fanatical Muslims Discover the Earth is Round
|
(top) |
I'm honestly not trying to mock indiscriminately, here. But... well, possibly the less said the better.
'AZAAN' - AN AMAZING DISCOVERY Azaan: An incredible medium for the proclamation of Tawheed of Almighty Allah and Risaalat of Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam, the sound of which constantly echoes around the globe.
Amazing though it sounds, but fortunately for the Muslims of the world, it is an established fact. Have a look at a map of the world and you will find Indonesia (an Islamic country) right on the eastern side of the earth’s central landmass. Indonesia consists of numerous small islands, the principle ones amongst them being Java, Sumatra, Borneo and Saibil, all of which are well known. It is the largest country in the world, with 180 million inhabitants. The number of non-muslims here is negligible.
As soon as dawn breaks on the eastern side of Saibil, at approximately 5:30 am local time, Fajar Azaan begins. Thousands of Mu’azzins in eastern Indonesia commence proclaiming the Tawheed (oneness) of the Almighty, Omnipotent and Omniscient Allah and Risaalat (Universal Apostleship) of the Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam.
The process then continues and advances towards the Western Islands of Indonesia. The time difference between the eastern and western islands of Indonesia is one and a half hours. Hence, one and a half hours after the Azaan has been completed in Saibil, it echoes in Jakarta on Java island. Sumatra then follows suit and before this auspicious process of calling Azaan ends in Indonesia, it has already begun in Malaysia. Burma is next in line, and within an hour of its commencement in Jakarta, it reaches Dacca, the capital city of Bangladesh. No sooner the calling of Azaan ends in Bangladesh, it has already prevailed in western India, from Calcutta to Srinagar. It then advances towards Bombay and the environment of entire India resounds with this august proclamation.
Srinagar and Sialkot (a city in north Pakistan) have the same timing for Azaan. The time difference between Sialkot, Kota, Karachi and Gowadar (a city in Baluchistan, a province of Pakistan) is forty minutes, and within this time, Fajar Azaan is heard throughout Pakistan. Before it ends there, however, it has already begun in Afghanistan and Muscat. The time difference between Muscat and Baghdad is one hour. Azaan resounds during this one hour in the environments of Hijaaz-e-Muqaddas (Holy cities of Makkah and Madinah), Yemen, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Iraq.
The time difference between Baghdad and Alexandria in Egypt is again one hour. Azaan continues to resound in Syria, Egypt, Somalia and Sudan during this hour. Alexandria and Istanbul are situated on the same geographical longitude. The time difference between eastern and western Turkey is one and a half hours, and during this time it is echoed with the call to prayer.
Alexandria and Tripoli (capital of Libya) are located at an hour’s difference from one another. The process of calling Azaan thus continues throughout the whole of Africa. Therefore, the proclamation of the Oneness of Allah and the Prophethood of Muhammad Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam that had begun in the eastern islands of Indonesia reaches the Eastern Shore of the Atlantic ocean after nine and a half hours.
Prior to the Azaan reaching the shores of the Atlantic, the process of Zohar Azaan has already commenced in eastern Indonesia, and before it reaches Dacca, Asar Azaan has started. This has hardly reached Jakarta one and half hours later, then the time of Maghrib becomes due, and no sooner has Maghrib time reached Sumatra, then the time for calling Isha Azaan has commenced in Saibil! When the Muazzins of Indonesia are calling out Fajar Azaan, the Muazzins in Africa are calling out the Azaan for Isha.
If we were to ponder over this phenomenon seriously and studiously, we would conclude the amazing fact that: 'There is not a single moment when thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Muazzins around the world are not proclaiming the Oneness of Almighty Allah and the Apostleship of the noble Prophet Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam on the surface of this earth!' Insha-Allah, this universal and continuous calling of the Azaan shall not cease until the Day of Judgement, and we should all make du`a for the same, AMEEN.
(Translated from Tameer-e-Hayaat)
Yeah, that sure is an amazing discovery, all right. I can hardly contain myself.
Sure beats the hell out of that whole artificial cybernetic vision thing that Wired covered.
|
|
15:14 - Who is Johnathan R. Galt?
http://www.islamic-news.co.uk/
|
(top) |
I've been hearing a fair amount about "cyber-terrorism" lately, on NPR and elsewhere-- in the context of a different way groups like al Qaeda could attack Western interests, ranging in severity from defacings of websites (which mostly amount to sending the message "Hey, if we can do this, think of what else we can do! Mwa ha haah!"-- even though the ability to deface a website implies nothing about someone's ability to access completely unrelated national-security resources; this isn't a movie) to being able to shut down power grids and access missile launch systems and so on.
At the very least I've expected to see some scrawlings on websites here and there, perpetrated by those doe-eyed Clear Guidance youths or some such. What I didn't see coming, though, was defacements of Jihadi websites-- like this one, which I saw linked from Tal G's blog, of www.islamic-news.co.uk.
(It's apparently remained like this for at least a day or two. If it's put back the way it was soon, I've saved a web archive of it.)
The defacement is signed by a Johnathan R. Galt, with a link to his own site, which appears to be a surprisingly comprehensive lising of Jihadi websites all over the world-- including references to their contents prior to 9/11, and lots of fascinating stuff like Egyptian year-2001 calendars printed months prior to the fact, with September's featured picture being of a jetliner crashing into Manhattan. And a ton more.
There's a worrisome angle which implicates the CIA in a lot of what's been going on, which sends off a few "conspiracy theorist" warning bells in my head:
America's CIA helped Osama and the Taliban overthrow the Soviets in Afghanistan. Maybe Osama bin Laden is still on the CIA payroll? And perhaps they arranged for him and the higher-ranking Taliban to escape .
...But the links are fairly damning, as are dozens more that involve the CIA later in the site, and I'm left wondering why we haven't heard more about this guy? I can't even find a reference to his name in the InstaPundit archives.
As for the Islamic News defacement itself, it appears to be an appeal directly to Muslims, though it's far from clear how Muslim Mr. Galt is. Interspersed with quotes from what appear to be Islamic scholars doing things like debunking the Palestinians' right to the land in Israel and calling for Muslims everywhere to stand up against the hijacking of their faith by fanatics who appear to want to destroy Islam by fighting for it are lines like:
Is it any wonder that the people of the world have developed a fear and sometimes open hatred for Muslims when they see: terror videos for sale at a mosque . This is madness, it's a blasphemy against Allah, and it must be stopped.
We have decided to cooperate with the authorities here in Britain andin the USA. Britain must not be used as a base for world-wide Islamist terrorism. The evidence we have of Islamists activities against India regarding Kashmir will be given to the Indian authorities. We will help the Russians battle the evil of the Saudi-Wahhabi sponsored Chechen Mujhadeen. We will help the Israelis overcome Arafat and his goons .
(I'm not sure what all the weird extra characters are about. Maybe it's steganography. I dunno.)
I'm still looking through these links. And here I thought I'd be able to get some work done today.
|
| Friday, August 30, 2002 |
09:08 - Ball 1...
|
(top) |
Apparently, in preparation for eleventh-hour negotiations this morning ahead of the supposedly imminent baseball strike, three undisclosed teams called their owners and said that they wouldn't walk. Work out a deal, they said, because they're backing out on the strike.
I wish I knew which teams those were. We might still be thanking them fifty years from now.
|
| Thursday, August 29, 2002 |
23:02 - Moments of Canadian Zen
|
(top) |
Now that I've got my USB cables all untangled from the unpacking process, I've got my big pile of photos imported into iPhoto, and once again I have to say that whatever the situation with Nikon's service department, the CoolPix 885 takes hella' sweet pictures. Kodachro-oh-ome, my ass... gimme 3.2 megapixels any day.
But that aside-- there were a few sights in Toronto that I treasured. One of them wasn't actually Canadian so much as Ford; it's what you find if you open up the trunk lid on a Ford Focus sedan.
Isn't that awesome? It reminds me of nothing so much as that "Pong: It's Not Just a Game" meme. It's like a hyperactive little video game. Pull the handle, and you pop out like Mario. Wheee!
Lance suggests that the handle is for the benefit of kids stuffed into the trunk by their deadbeat dads, so they can eject to freedom while hurtling down the interstate. I guess that makes more sense than what I had in mind-- I suppose the mob isn't going to use a whole lot of Ford Foci.
But then, in the TTC subway, there was this:
Read the text in the posted... read the small-print caption at the bottom ("Take away the anger before it takes away the girl"). Then look at the setting.
Above the third rail in the subway.
It's Humpty-frickin'-Dumpty. Whatever hideous incident of young-girl-incited violence took place that felled an innocent bystander from a precarious wall or ledge, you just gotta admire a place where a public service announcement can get away with being placed in so deliciously ironic a position.
I just couldn't let it go unphotographed, now could I?
|
| Wednesday, August 28, 2002 |
16:43 - Breathing Oregon's Second-Hand Smoke
http://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/natural_hazards_v2.php3?img_id=4
|
(top) |
Okay, so the dingy brown haze that's still hovering over the Valley is in fact the result of those month-old wildfires in southern Oregon, as a Mercury News article last week confirmed with a very telling image from the National Weather Service which showed the smoke drifting very clearly southward, blown down along the coastline and pressed up against it by the prevailing ocean winds. Since we're right on the coast here, we get the easternmost swirls of that still-cohesive mass of smoke, oh joy.
The picture above isn't the same one, but it's very similar. The page I've linked to has a whole lot of other pictures of the event over the past month, and it's very cool to browse through. It's a little bit hollow, though, considering what the air outside looks like.
Other than that, though, I'd say that this is extremely pleasant summer weather. Just yesterday it was 98°F outside; Lance and I spent the lunch hour prowling around a Sunnyvale outdoor shopping center, without much more than a vague sense of it being sort of warm and nice out. Try doing that in, oh, I don't know, Toronto.
I like this place. Even if we have to put up with the occasional side effect of living on the frontier.
|
| Thursday, August 15, 2002 |
22:50 - Seanbaby the Sorcerer's Advocate
http://www.thewavemag.com/pagegen.php?pagename=article&articleid=22182
|
(top) |
Huzzah! Seanbaby is back, this time with a new article in The Wave about a truly inspired piece of moronicity: a low-budget video warning Christian parents about how evil the Harry Potter books are.
Seanbaby is great at reviewing stupid videos (of which many more such articles can be found at seanbaby.com); and this one proves he's no different even when he has to hold to some level of decorum because he's being published in a Bay Area lifestyle rag. It's all so good, I had a hard time picking a paragraph to quote.
The thing that makes fundamental Christianity special is that it’s the only religion that runs smear campaigns. No voodoo witch doctors have ever put together a home video warning voodoo parents of the seductive danger of Christian rock. HP...WR:MELI takes its outrage an extra step into crazy by actually inventing most of the things they hate about Harry Potter. Of course, as the video warns, if you say witchcraft has no power, you have two problems in your line of reasoning. One: you’re ignoring all the people that do have magic powers, and two: you’re saying that God’s warning in the Bible against sorcery is actually worthless. That means that the people who made this video have set it up so that in order for them NOT to be crazy, children need to be flying on brooms and raising bodies from the dead. So say what you want about their book-burning crusade, these people have balls.
Indeed.
The people we have to share our air with...
|
| Monday, August 12, 2002 |
12:10 - Bill Biggart
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0111/biggart_intro.htm
|
(top) |
We've all seen Bill Biggart's last few photos in Newsweek and elsewhere; he's the guy who stayed under the WTC towers on 9/11, snapping pictures on his D30 right up until the buildings fell on him.
I don't know if this page is new or what, but it's worth some perusal either way. If just to refresh the imagery in our minds now that the one-year anniversary is coming up. It's not like it's that easy to forget, especially for New Yorkers. But still-- sometimes seeing something that makes us grit our teeth is more useful than reading a ten-page screed on why George Galloway is an anti-American, terrorist-supporting bogocrat and the quicker we take Baghdad the less chance we stand of getting ourselves nuked. Sometimes we just need a few photos-- and a few extraordinary circumstances under which they were taken-- to remind us what's at stake here.
|
|
11:35 - That's that good ol' entrepreneurial spirit...
http://www.origamiboulder.com/
|
(top) |
A few days ago, Corsair the Rational Pirate pointed me towards this site, which in the grand old tradition of Ninja Burger and the "totally sweet" Real Ultimate Power Ninja site, sticks a shuriken in the eye of the reverent mystique of Japanese art and tradition.
It does a damned fine job of it, too. I may have to buy one of these, just to exhibit my support for this guy's spirit.
Site is beautiful Sekimori would be proud But-- the content? Naaah.
|
| Sunday, August 11, 2002 |
22:45 - I'm preordering this book...
http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/02/0802/080202.html#081202
|
(top) |
Great payoff on today's Bleat. It's long and artsy, and you have to stick with it-- but it ends in a LOL. (Not a LOLOLOL or a LOOOOL or an OMFG, but still-- excellent.)
I wonder why I haven't picked up the print version of the Gallery of Regrettable Food yet. I've been showing it to people with great relish since I first discovered it in about 1997. I should get me a copy.
|
|
16:59 - Uh, guys...
|
(top) |
The latest charming missive from the Ar-Rahman list, which hardly requires comment (not that I can refrain from it):
Now, again, I realize that this list is about preaching-to-the-choir. But listen, guys: not just Allah, but the world is watching you now, very damned closely. And stuff like this does not exactly drum up sympathy. You don't get to mass-mail pictures of Sharon as a baby-murdering butcher-shop owner dealing in human sausages, and then take horrified offense at a picture like this, no matter who created it. (I would venture to guess that the Koran has unflattering things to say about hypocrisy, just like eveybody else does.) And it does not raise sympathy for your cause either to lead it off with Juden Raus slogans.
("From a jewish site". Yeah? Which one? Got a URL? Any facts at all?)
I've got news for you: it's not just "Jews and Indians" who are creating pictures like this. They're not the only ones who are desperate to see an end to this bloodthirsty Wahhabi madness.
Besides, in the midst of all this shrill virulent indignance on the list, I have yet to see a single condemnation of violence committed by Muslims, let alone of 9/11. Which, I hardly need to explain, actually happened. The Ka'aba is still standing. It's only because of the West's common human decency and unwillingness to damage sites of religious significance or antiquity that that is the case, but I hope would-be mass terrorists are bearing in mind that such decency is bound to have limits. Should another 9/11 happen, the scenario this image depicts might well become a very real and justified measure in the minds of Americans (and even Europeans, if they get attacked, perish the thought). No matter how many US cities they manage to take out with suitcase nukes or anthrax, all it takes is a press of a button to send a cruise missile into Mecca. I hope that keeps them up at night.
I wonder if the Islamic world has at least accepted that Muslims were actually behind the 9/11 attacks, and that it wasn't just a Jewish plot as they so stubbornly maintained for months afterwards?
|
| Saturday, August 10, 2002 |
19:33 - So who's been screwing with the lighting out there?
|
(top) |
I don't often drive westward through San Jose towards work in the late summer evening, as the sun is descending into the Peninsula mountains, so I don't know if it's always like this. If it is, I should do it more often.
It's been very hot all day today-- well over 100, and still and close, unlike the usual windy summer days we usually get around here-- carrying the haze out of the valley and drawing humidity away from one's skin, so if it's 95 out you can just open a window and you'd have an occasional gusty breeze all day that prevents the heat from being uncomfortable.
But today's heat was different; it was the kind of heat in which the entire color of the sky changes. And not in a Midwestern, opaque whiteness kind of way; it was sort of a dingy, smoky, gray veil over the sun. Looking towards the mountains and the lines of trees, I kept expecting to see them shrouded by a murky brown LA-like haze. But I didn't. The sun was falling on leaves and turning them to clear gold. It was reflecting off buildings and railing the contrast slider, enhancing the vividness of everything, even though the sky itself seemed as dull as though we were in the middle of an eclipse.
There was a big, heavy, ponderous swath of cloud across the horizon, right above the mountains, that the sun was punching through on it way down as I made my way westward towards it. It seemed to be in one fringe or the other the whole time. And the result was that the long evening shadows on the ground blended into gold and bright blue rather than into grays and browns. The sun has by now emerged out the bottom of those clouds, and the colors are returning to something more closely approaching normal, but I don't think it'll get all the way there-- the air is just in a really weird mood today.
Ah well. I've spent the day recording Invader Zim episodes and watching the Season Two DVDs of the Simpsons, so I figured I'd better get in to work or else I'd feel humomgously guilty about having wasted a day with a sky like this.
|
| Thursday, August 8, 2002 |
09:33 - I was not aware of that.
|
(top) |
Apparently, we're all Muslims-- we just don't know it. See, you don't convert to Islam-- you revert.
Salaam.. everyone person born is a muslim at birth, since it is the true religion. After time, whether it be parents, where we live whatever, that changes, and people have then conform to their different religions. So I have reverted back to Islam. Most people that I have talked to, do not like the word converted. That means you made an entire switch, which is not true. Since you start off as Muslim, you are just reverting or coming back to it. I truly hope i have said this correctly. If I have not please forgive me and correct me.
Boy... the things I learn about myself from this Ar-Rahman list.
Seriously, it's every bit as important to hear this kind of stuff as it is to hear the intelligent discourse from sane Muslims who have a grip on reality. We can't blind ourselves to either side.
By the way-- yeah, I know this kind of thinking is hardly unique to Islam. I've heard the same kinds of things out of the mouths of everybody from Baptists to Branch Davidians. I just find it awfully silly, though, regardless of the person's background who's saying it.
I spent my entire freshman year arguing with my devoutly Christian roommate, plastering written re-re-rebuttals all over the interior of our room and spilling over outside into the hallway. (We never actually discussed it face to face-- we just posted these long dissertations at each other and never mentioned them out loud.) One thing he said was that "Atheists don't go to Hell-- they just return to the dirt from which they came." In other words, you had to be a Christian and an apostate in order to go to Hell.
Interesting fairy-tale semantics, but that's all it is. To someone who doesn't subscribe to them.
Besides, Aziz points out that there's a "No compulsion in religion" clause in Islam that this person seems to be ignoring, and a verse (109:6) that says "To you be your Faith, and to me mine." So, well, it's not like contradictory behavior to what's in the text is unique to Islam either; but at least this person's either wrong, or simply walled off by context. And either way, it's just wordplay.
|
| Wednesday, August 7, 2002 |
22:40 - Did I really just see that?
|
(top) |
I just saw a Barbie doll commercial on TV. At the end of the ad, they mentioned the Barbie website and the stuff that you can do on it if you're the kind of kid who would find such things compelling. Naturally, such a pitch has to have a disclaimer on it that says you should be over 18 to go online and gain access to the site, a stricture traditionally conveyed with statements like "Your parents put it together" and "You must have your parents' permission to visit the website".
But this one-- though I only saw it for a fraction of a second, I'm sure I saw it correctly. It said:
"Help Mom or Dad to get online."
Genius.
|
|
22:37 - Things that defy description
http://serendipity.magnet.ch/wtc.html
|
(top) |
Has this site already been discussed and beaten to death in the blog world? And I'm just late to the game? Or is it actually enjoying a wave of popularity?
The site, called "The World Trade Center Demolition and the So-Called War on Terrorism", comes to us as the "Awful Link of the Day" from somethingawful.com. It seems to be the definitive 9/11 conspiracy-theory treatise, purporting to explain how the whole thing was a massive hoax perpetrated by the CIA, the top-level government, and the Jews. The goal of all this is hard to discern-- the main thrust of the site appears to be to discredit the idea that Islamic terrorists hijacked the planes, and instead that the attacks were carried out by remote-controlled drone planes, demolition bombs, high explosives (in the case of the Pentagon), or perhaps even a high-powered laser weapon. But if anything in the site proposes any kind of goal to this whole conspiracy thing, it's the closing paragraphs:
And what if the U.S. warmongers achieve their aims of gaining control of all sources of oil in Asia (and the Middle East and North Africa), and of the mineral wealth of Central Asia? Will the Europeans, Japanese and Chinese feel secure in the knowledge that the United States will surely sell them whatever they need to maintain their industrial economies — and their military capabilities? (The Russian and Chinese leaders surely understand the long-term threat to their national sovereignty, and are acting accordingly.)
Or is there something even more sinister going on? Is the goal "at the highest level" the extinction of the human species? If so, will the American people prove to be "useful idiots" facilitating the attainment of this goal? Or, on the contrary, might they yet awaken from their ignorance, their stupidity, their greed and their egoism, take a hard look at themselves, understand what their lying, vicious, rapacious, hypocritical government is doing in the name of "freedom and democracy", and rein in and reform that government, reconstitute their nation as a republic as the authors of the Constitution intended, and save the world, as they believe (or used to believe) is their manifest destiny?
Ah, good. The goal of this conspiracy is to enslave and/or exterminate the human race. Why this would benefit anybody more than a prosperous and free society (like the one we have now) would is left unclear.
Read through this page, if you feel like shaking your head in disbelief at something, but you want a change of pace from the current Jew-stabbing-teens message boards and would rather see a Libertarian-who-gives-Libertarians-a-bad-name set of allegations supported by Chomsky quotes and barbs at "the Jew-controlled media", hosted in Switzerland because-- well, it's Switzerland.
I could say a lot more about this, but... it's really not worth my time.
Draw your own conclusions.
|
|
13:17 - Media Bias
|
(top) |
You know what's funny? We in the blogosphere appear to have a pretty widespread consensus that the big media is of a liberal slant, with its continued nostalgic fascination with the Clintons, its merciless attacks upon the country's corporate upper-echelons, its pro-gun-control rhetoric, and its recent expressions of opposition to the war in Iraq and to Israel's policies, as well as being the bastion of moral-equivalence arguments and "why do they hate us?" soul-searching. The New York Times the Washington Post, CNN, Fox, CBS and so on-- they're all widely held to be disproportionate representatives of the liberal minds of Americans, claiming to speak for a great many more people than they really do.
But through the eyes of the Ar-Rahman list, what people keep saying is that the American media is hopelessly biased toward Israel. The exact opposite observation. They see the same media coverage that we do, of events in Jenin and Ramallah and Jerusalem, and while we might furrow our brows at the soulful camera pans across downtrodden Palestinians as the announcer explains why they feel their only choice is to blow themselves up in pizza parlors and dismiss it as liberal heart-wringing, to the Islamic viewpoint the exact opposite impression is given. To the people on the list, such coverage is nowhere near anti-Israeli enough. (I suppose this really shouldn't surprise me.) They feel they can't trust a word of what any media outlet says about the events in the Middle East. They're obviously lies and half-truths, covering up the heinous deeds of the Israelis which the biased conservative American media wants kept silent so the American people can be kept in the dark and their anger stirred to madness against the world's Muslims.
I guess it must be indicative of a certain kind of cultivated mindset to think that we in this country could possibly fail to gather the complete picture if we're really interested. This isn't the CCCP; this isn't China or Iraq. We don't have to rely on a state-run news organ to get our carefully filtered porthole into the outside world. Our big media agencies may be subject to bias, but they're private corporations-- each with their own internal agendas-- and there are a lot of them. We've got everything from Rush Limbaugh to The 700 Club to NPR. We've got the Drudge Report, we've got Stratfor.com, and we've got InstaPundit-- not to mention hundreds, if not thousands, of other blogs, comprising a spectrum of opinion that-- because it's individual people speaking, not shareholder-bound companies-- is at even wider variance than what's on TV.
And when they all agree on the basic facts of something that's happening in Tel Aviv or Nablus, then I'll tell you: it's pretty safe to say it's the real story.
The people on the Ar-Rahman list are giving each other tips and advice as to which news organs are more likely to present-- well, not an unbiased view of events, but at least one that's less horrifyingly pro-Israeli than most. "Try MSNBC," says one participant, "It's a little better than CNN or Fox."
I've got a better idea. If you want news that tells you what you want to hear, go tune in al-Jazeera. But if you want to listen to what the American news agencies have to say, and you don't like what they're saying, it could just possibly be that reality is what's not on your side, not a conspiracy of biased Jew-operated anti-Islamic infidel media.
|
|
12:21 - Ooooh.
http://talg.blogspot.com/2002_08_04_talg_archive.html#79890535
|
(top) |
In the responses to Tal G.'s link to the Clear Guidance message board yesterday, someone mentioned the thing about jihad really meaning simply "internal struggle".
Then someone named James said:
Of course Jihad means struggle. So does Kampf.
|
|
10:48 - My what?
|
(top) |
As I was crossing the driveway heading for my car on the way to work this morning, a guy in a utility truck pulled up to the sidewalk.
"Hi! Are your mom and dad home?"
I must admit I was so taken aback that I can't remember what I said. Probably something like "Hhwhwaaaa?" Because he repeated it.
"Are your mom and dad at home?"
I'm 26. My hair is short, I'm wearing a Hawaiian shirt and a gold watch, I'm carrying an iBook and a couple of bills to pay, and I'm holding the keys to my suburbanite econo-sport wheelbox.
"I'm, uh, not-- no," is all I can come up with.
Something hits him. "Aah, are you the man of the house?"
"Well, I'm one of them..."
"You want your yard trimmed?"
I take his business card and tell him our yard is in the shower. I'm not home alone, nuh-uh, for reals.
I suppose I should be flattered and stuff, but... geez. What a freaky way to begin the day.
|
|
10:07 - You dipshits.
|
(top) |
Speaking of Ar-Rahman, someone sent a message through last night with the following pictures as attachments, as "evidence" that the Israelis are just as bad as the Nazis. "Sharon vs. Hitler," read the subject.




Ooh, yeah, it's exactly the same thing. I don't know why I wasn't totally convinced before. Such images of brutality.
(Yes, I know, this list is about preaching to the converted-- those to whom these pictures are incontrovertible proof of the parallel in the subject line.)
But doesn't anybody have the balls to question anything? Doesn't anyone have enough assurance to put this kind of position up against facts, or to approach it from a dissenting viewpoint? Or would such a thing be implicitly kufr?
"These pictures show that the Israelis are just like the Nazis." Uh huh. So let's see the pictures of Israeli soldiers lining up Palestinian civilians next to a pit and mowing them down with machine guns. Let's see the pictures of Israeli soldiers murdering little girls in their beds. Let's see the photos of the Israelis' concentration camps where they send the Palestinians en masse to be gassed. Oh, and while you're at it, show me some history with Jews blowing up German ice-cream parlors and shopping venues and commuter buses with suicide belts, killing grandmothers and babies and pregnant women, and then dancing in the streets of the Berlin and Warsaw ghettos, shooting guns in the air and praising Jehovah.
Then we'll talk.
Until then, shut the hell up.
|
| Tuesday, August 6, 2002 |
02:39 - A Religion of Peace
http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/02/0802/080102.html#080702
|
(top) |
Children are savage little things. The jungle is in them, and the wilderness. Occasionally, one will come along in whom the jungle boils and screams, and with that one comes chaos. And with children, chaos is a thing of stones and blood.
Preacher, of course-- Allfather D'Aronique sadistically recalling to Starr the events of his own tormented childhood.
It's all I could think about while reading today's Bleat.
I saw the link to the message-board that Lileks is talking about, referred to in his usual emotionless and bewilderingly matter-of-fact way by Tal G. But I had an idea of what I might find there, and since I had no wish to spend the remainder of my workday fuming and seething, I didn't go and read it. It seems I made a good call, if only for the sake of my sanity. Lileks has taken the bullet of reading this stuff so we don't have to-- but we'd all better read it just the same, so we know what kind of primal savagery we're dealing with.
The thread is full of charming stuff; they talk about the joys of knifing Jews, and discuss the merits of a particular decapitate-the-infidel tape - who knew it was such a genre? It almost seems as if these guys trade decapitation tapes like l33t hackers swap warez...
There’s more. It’s lovely. Sample message topics: “Do Jews Drink Human Blood?” “Holocoust Never Happened!”
I’d have no interest in this website whatsoever were it not for three things:
1. When there’s a subculture out there ranking the best jihadi decapitation video, you’d best pay attention.
2. When a message board devoted to guidance for Islamic youth doesn’t delete the posts about stabbing Jews, you’d best pay attention.
3. This thread. As far as I can tell, the debate seems to be whether it’s a brother’s job to kill his sexually active sister, or the religious authority’s job.
It's a Bleat, so that means go read the whole thing.
What I find so sick and disheartening about all this is Islam is being treated by these kids as a carte blanche license for them to express-- not just without guilt, but with righteousness-- the kinds of savage and barbaric feelings of bloodlust that the rest of the world learned to rise above and leave behind many hundreds of years ago. These days, kids who want to work out their chainsaw-wielding aggressions go out and buy whatever hyper-violent video game has just hit the market, and they learn to separate such impulses from reality and the rules we live by in a healthy and self-determined way. But when there's an excuse like Islam for kids to latch onto-- one where the Law of Life flat-out encourages them to think in terms of hating infidels and killing Jews-- they're going to throw themselves into it headlong and lick up every drop of vitriol that it offers. And those are the foundational values that will inform these kids throughout the rest of their adult lives.
It's really small wonder where people like John Lindh come from-- the picture that militant Islam paints for bellicose, testosterone-pumped teenage boys is irresistible. It's like painting a naked woman on a big piece of butcher paper and then setting it up at the edge of a cliff; they're going to walk right through, drooling all the way. The evidence is right in front of us-- on this message board, and on the Ar-Rahman list I still seem to be on (where the latest discourse is from Muslim Americans pleading the others on the list to understand that the "vast majority" of Americans hate Bush and his policies, support the Palestinian cause and despise Israel, and will come to see the light of Islam if only the world gives us a chance).
As much as it might pain the students at clearguidance.com, American churches don’t give two figs for the subject of Islam one way or the other. It’s just not on their radar. There are no pained debates in church basements about how to act towards Muslim friends, or what to do when your friend’s sister comes over with a headscarf. As much as some would like to portray mainstream American religious belief as a Dangerous Ravening Force bent on establishing an Ashcroftian theocracy, most churches look inward. A dear friend of mine is part of a church-group mission to help the Truly Farked - she’s mentoring a down-and-out drug addict, helping her get on her feet. Is that addict a Christian? No idea. Doesn’t come up. Does my friend praise Jeeeeeesus every time she drops off meals or blankets for the addict? Irrelevant. The act is what matters. It’s the gift, not the wrapping.
Yes, yes, of course, I understand-- it's two entirely different ways of thinking. In the one world, religion is something you do as part of your normal day-to-day life; whereas in the other, day-to-day life is something you do as subordinate to religion, which defines all of existence. As part of a tradition in which I'm raised to consider the former to be far more natural, I can't properly understand the context or the motivation behind the latter.
But Tal G. never once has mused upon knifing a Palestinian baby. And he freely linked to the message board full of Muslim youths discussing doing exactly that to Jewish babies, and with hardly a comment by way of preamble or reaction.
I don't know what could possibly speak more succinctly than exactly that.
|
|
17:56 - Now there's an idea...
http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/techwrapper.jsp?PID=1051-250&CID=1051-080102A
|
(top) |
Via InstaPundit, here's another proposal for a WTC replacement that we could be proud of having built. It's a lot more subtle and quiet than the WTC2002 design, which (by the way) now has a petition/vote thing up so you can make your voice heard through some unclear means if you feel such a design is worth pursuing-- even if that means putting it at the extreme ostentatious end of the spectrum of possibilities.
But this one doesn't even necessarily have to be hideously tall. It's got real possibilities, and it's as symbolic as you could want without being pretentious or overbearing. It's a bit ungainly, perhaps, but these are just rough sketch ideas that the site has.
Hint: it's all about the roof.
|
|
13:48 - Do You Believe in Love?
http://www.coldfury.com/Entries/00000262.html
|
(top) |
Something that has always, always befuddled me is how in movies, books, TV shows, pretty much anywhere-- there's the recurring plot element of a guy who's been dumped by his girlfriend/wife/female companion, who clearly cannot stand him anymore. And yet he spends the rest of his life trying to win her back. You know, the kind of thing that stalkers are made of. The plot of The War of the Roses. The idea that even though she clearly hates you, all you have to do-- in order to make her love you again-- is to capture her and force her to submit to your will.
What is it about this kind of situation that strips people of their sense of reality? Any sane man ought to be able to understand that if she wanted to be with him, she wouldn't be running and hiding and calling the police every time he comes near. This is not a woman who is teasing, who secretly "wants to be won over". This is a woman who wants the guy the hell out of her life, for good. If she says, "I want a divorce"-- that means she does not want to live with the guy anymore. It does not mean that the guy can reason and convince and bitch-slap his way into her heart again. What could make a guy think that love can be forced to exist? What would lead him to believe that having the companionship of one particular woman is so unique and important that he is willing to throw away all of his cherished morals and ethics and willingness to abide by law and common human decency, just to recapture it in some bizarre physical drug-like ritual-- even in the face of the obvious fact that she would rather kill him or herself than be in the same state with him?
... Okay, that's sort of a tangent from what I'd originally meant to say. But I suppose not, because it's pretty much the same ridiculous mindset that seems to drive what Mike "Cold Fury" Hendrix has begun calling the Axis of Feeble: the UN, the EU, and other international leftist bodies who seem willing to leap at even the smallest soiled handkerchief tossed from the window of a woman named Iraq who has been flinging rocks at them nonstop for the past ten years. (This is Mike's metaphor, not mine, but it works.)
Can't a guy ever learn to move on?
It's one thing to try to patch up a relationship where both parties honestly want to make it work, where both sides are willing to change and to make sacrifices and compromises and to alter their respective planned futures for the prospect of a symbiotic life that might grow to be more than the sum of its parts.
But it's quite another for one party to be continuously spurned, insulted, threatened, and attacked for years and years-- and not to ever reach the conclusion that the party doing the spurning might just be a lost cause, and not worth throwing everything away over at the first (and by no means sincere) sign that she might be softening.
What will it take to convince the world that some nations and some regimes just flat-out suck, and the onus is upon them to change-- not us? That it's their responsibility to make the unilateral concessions if they don't want to get blown up?
All I can think is that Kofi Annan has been watching too many chick-flicks lately, or something.
|
| Tuesday, July 30, 2002 |
13:24 - Arr, ye scurvy gods
http://corsair.blogspot.com/2002_07_01_corsair_archive.html#79595446
|
(top) |
Corsair has some snarky comments about people's religiously-bent reactions to the rescue of the miners in Pennsylvania.
What it might have been was men and women and machines and processes working the way that they were built, trained, and employed. These people did not just show up there at random and begin drilling. They had a plan develped by men and carried out by deceidedly ungodlike individuals.
Why then is God getting all the credit and none of the blame? He did, in fact, move that old mine that was filled with water 300 feet in closer to the new mine so that the miners would break through and almost drown. That was the real miracle! Oh, he didn't do that? That was a faulty map drawn by men many years ago? I see. well, couldn't he have intervened back then when the map was being drawn and fixed so that the nine miners wouldn't become trapped in 2002? A little proactive miracling would seem to work wonders.
It's a question as old as the genre of edgy cynical fiction (Dante up through Vertigo comics): Why is every good thing that happens in the world a "miracle", and every bad thing that happens simply "God's will"? Why does God allow bad stuff to happen in the world at all?
I think what we have in this case is simply a question of vocabulary. "God", as invoked by these people, is a concept-- a shorthand for the good will of humans and for luck. You don't see people holding up signs saying "Thank the rescuers!" or "All hail the rescue equipment designers!" or "We had good fortune!" or anything, but everybody pretty much knows that's taken as read. Thanking "God" is a well-understood and comfortable way to express relief that everything went right.
There could have been some serious injuries down there that claimed lives, for instance. The equipment could have broken down in a freak accident resulting from poor maintenance or clumsy usage or whatever. But it didn't; and the ingenuity of human beings, while fully capable of solving a problem like this in an ideal world (or even in a realistic one), was not hampered by unforeseen and inexorable events. Their human genius was left free to work as intended. And that's what has left people relieved.
I think what this shows is that we're a humble species by nature, and we have a pandemic guilty conscience. We're really not all that high-and-mighty in our attitudes when there's a disaster to face. Deep down in our biology, we're conditioned to accept loss, to write off death that results from accidents or disasters over which we have no control. We know to look the other way. We move on. We don't blame God in a societal bloc for things that go wrong, because as humble and fearful as we are conditioned to be, we assume that such reaction would just be inviting more misfortune. Instead, we react with surprise and joy when everything turns out all right. We have a lot of emotions to express in that kind of circumstance, and the way we're conditioned to do it is to recognize that Fortune was kind-- or in other words, that "it was a miracle".
I really don't mind it when people use this kind of vocabulary to express their feelings of relief-- none of it ever is intended to trivialize the ingenuity or the efforts of the humans involved. I don't think anybody in the town thought the rescue could have happened without those things-- or if they did, they're a statistical outlier, like the people who believe that all modern medicine is quackery and only prayer can cure disease. Most people are rational. Even sports stars who thank God for getting them to the World Series know that what they're really saying is that they're relieved that everything has gone right so far, that despite whatever hardships or injuries or disadvantages were in the way, he got there anyway-- and what he's treating as a miracle is the fact that it wasn't bad enough that it would have forced him to quit. That's the modern sense of "miracle": that nothing fell out of the sky to screw it all up beyond recovery. Not a trivial concept, that.
But that said, I commiserate with your frustration, me matey. There's so much in this world that would seem so much easier to deal with if we could just call everything by its right name: human kindness, perseverance, ingenuity, quickness, endurance, selflessness, and dumb luck.
But there are also times when if given the choice between having things the way they are now, and having them such that we treat everything turning out right as the default expected behavior and throwing irrational tantrums and railing against misfortune or evil when something like 9/11 occurs, I would pick the former.
|
| Sunday, July 28, 2002 |
02:07 - The Tech Support Yoda
|
(top) |
Matt Robinson conveyed the following gem to me in e-mail the other day; true, it has no context or anything, but I thought it was just too good not to share.
An increasingly annoying trend in support lines in the UK (and undoubtedly elsewhere too) is for the company to substitute training and product knowledge with an "expert system" that prompts the guy on the other end of the line. "Ask them to check their dial-up settings; click here, there, choose this, do that. Ask them to re-install windows, just in case. Ask them do they want fries with that? Don't forget to thank the customer for calling." That way they can pay minimum wage because the tech support guy isn't actually trained, he's just a monkey who can read and doesn't scream back at abusive customers. Chances are there's fifty of them there, and they all last about 2-6 months. When I call tech support, I -=know=- what's wrong; I want a straight answer to a question like "is there a problem with your routers in this area?" Problem is, the answer to that question requires knowledge of the question - it's unlikely to be in the expert system of stock-questions and stock-answers. It'd be on a status page if they had one (annoyingly few people do!). So now both myself and Bruce have resorted to just hanging up and redialling until we find The Tech Support Yoda, who's much like the person writing those fantastic "Porn Store Clerk" entries -- far too clever to be in that job. What you get is:
Me: Hi! Is there a problem with the routers in the Luton/Hertfordshire area? TS1: Uh.. what exactly is the problem? Is it that you can't connect to a particular website? Me: No.. I just want a simple answer. Do you have a status board somewhere in your office? Doesn't it say something like "beaver.routers.ntlworld.com -- down for maintenance"? TS1: I .. er.. look, could you just check your internet dial-up connection settings? Me: Alright, I'm going to hang up now because you're clearly not capable of dealing with my problem.
[.. -click- -redial- -repeat three or four times- -finally-]
Me: Hi! Is there a problem with the routers in the Luton/Hertfordshire area? Yoda: Hmm! Problem there is, yes! Use alternative dialup number, you must. 0845 292-9412 Me: Thank you! Bye!
That's all I want! It's all I ask for! I despair sometimes, I truly do. :)
You do not despair alone, my friend.
|
|
11:12 - Well, that bloody figures.
http://muslimpundit.blogspot.com/
|
(top) |
MuslimPundit is idle for over three months; we all hold our breaths, hoping for Adil's glorious return, any day now-- but it looks more and more unlikely as time goes on.
And the day after I remove his link from my blogroll, he returns.
Razzam-frazzam.
Anyway, he's leading off his new stint of being-there-hood with a long essay on the nature of jihad, in which he deflates the new-age redefinition of the word from "moderate Muslims" who have been trying to tell us that the proper meaning of jihad, the one that the Koran commands all Muslims to embrace, is an internal or spiritual struggle rather than armed aggression against the infidels.
What the Qur’an does say, however, is very interesting: not only does it subscribe to a warfare-approach to “jihad”, but what comes across also as increasingly clear is the fact that by far the most instances where Muslims are prompted to carry out jihad in the Qur’an, refer to acts of aggressive instigation rather than that of defensive warfare (just examine the subject index in any good copy of the Qur’an). Not only is it permitted, but the Qur’an orders that it be waged till the cause of God prevails. This flies in the face of Armstrong’s blind belief that Muslims “…may never initiate hostilities… and aggressive warfare is always forbidden. The only permissible war, therefore, is a war of self-defense…”. Such injunctions heavily tend towards being exceptions rather than instances of a general rule. Thus, Muslims, as well as some non-Muslim “experts”, who propound this version of “self-defence-only jihad” subscribe to a notion that, with respect to the classical Islamic doctrine, is palpably false. Some modernist Muslims, like the late Fazlur Rahman of Chicago University, have rejected this view owing to its gross misuse of history. As they point out, this notion of “jihad”, as a strategy only for self-defence, is a myth.
Yeah. This is why I had that link there in the first place. Back it goes.
|
| Friday, July 26, 2002 |
14:49 - Burn Down the Bandwagon
http://www.coldfury.com/Entries/00000239.html
|
(top) |
It's all sweetness and light over at Fuzzy Fuzzy Kittens today, where the Plaintiff is Always Right, where the Evil Corporate Greed-Monster is always looking for a way to put more of its customers in the hospital, and where there is no cause so ludicrous that a lawyer is not willing to make his name for the ages as the Man who Took Down Big [Product], standing in proud honest defense of the sobbing victim of inexorable mind-control who might just be able to get ever so slight an amount of solace from a huge cash windfall. Just a slight one. Well, maybe just a little more.
(Hint: not really.)
It's about the recent "fast-food liability" case, where people have evidently taken the successes against the tobacco industry to mean that the same convictions of wrongdoing in those cases obviously mean that any purveyor of widely-enjoyed products is doing exactly the same thing. Ronald McDonald is just like Joe Camel, you see. KFC is an addictive drug. Chalupas are infused with "deliciousness crystals" which force kids to go back to Taco Bell day after day after day, against their wills, poor dears. Of course it's not their fault that they're fat and unhealthy. It's the evil fast-food corporations, the ones who must market their deadly wares to kids because their older customers keep dying.
This culture of "no free will" is getting way out of hand. I'll say it again: Ever since they forced Beavis to stop saying "Fire" because some kid burned down his house, I've been extremely cynical about cases like this. I'm no friend of cigarettes (particularly in public), but nobody has to start smoking, particularly not in this country, not in this day and age. (Heaven help you if you go to France or Russia, though.) I wish people wouldn't do it, but it's not the government's job to force people to quit; that's what families are for. And if people imitate what they see on TV or eat fast food, it is their own bloody decision. Once upon a time, people had to face the consequences for what they chose to do, and it wasn't society's fault or some corporation's fault or their parents' fault. It was their fault. They didn't get to sue somebody and go home with millions and wreck everything for the responsible rest of the world just because they felt they got a raw deal or spilled their damn coffee in their lap.
I hold on to the vain hope that one day the pendulum will swing back around, and people will start taking responsibility for their own actions once again instead of casting about for someone to sue when things go wrong. Parents will once again take an active hand in raising (and disciplining) their kids, and they will be held responsible if the kid goes nuts-- up to a certain age, after which the kid himself is held responsible. Double standards, where football players get diplomatic schoolyard immunity and the persecution of nerds is condoned, will be done away with and will no longer lead to Columbines. And we'll all grow up to be responsible adults who understand that what we do has real consequences, instead of there always being someone to blame if we screw up.
Sure, it's easy for me to say this, since I'm not at some kind of societal disadvantage like these plaintiffs are. But, well, I've got my own things to deal with, and I'll address them in my own life, on my own terms, thank you very much.
Because if my failures aren't my fault, then neither are my successes my own achievements. And I'm not giving those up, dammit.
|
| Wednesday, July 24, 2002 |
14:22 - A happy hour or two of info-tainment
http://www.improvisation.ws/mb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4475
|
(top) |
"True Porn Clerk Stories", it's called.
It's a journal/blog sort of a thing written by a woman named Ali Davis, who is a clerk at a porn video store. She has a collection of long, well-written, involving and hilarious tales that are unmatched in the ring-of-tired-truth department by anything since Acts of Gord. And naturally, in keeping with the premise, this one's rather on the risqué side, so beware if you're the sensitive type.
I just want him to know that I am not impressed. I want him to know that his cellphone and pile of bags do not make him impressive, they make him a human log jam. I want him to know that renting a stack of 6 porn movies a day tends to undercut his intended dashing, man-about-town effect. I want him to know that true big-shots do not try to screw small locally-owned businesses out of petty amounts of cash. I want to have the pleasure of publicly deflating him.
There is no earthly reason I should care so much, and it drives me nuts that I do. I am a pacifist. I like to think of myself as a nonviolent and gentle person. I have actually fantasized about knocking Mr. Pig to the ground and kicking him. Once, when he was being particularly obnoxious, I had a flash of an image: Me putting a foot on Mr. Pig's chest, shoving a gun in his mouth, and blowing his brains across the New For Sale section. It frightened me, but I enjoyed it.
My only question is, why is this person still only making $6.50 an hour? This is excellent writing.
I used to hate opening on weekends because the early morning customers scared the shit out of me. The store opens at 9. I usually do about 20 mintues of set-up and hit the front door at 9 on the dot by the store clock. There is always someone waiting to get to the porn. Once or twice I have had a problem - a register came up short or a circuit breaker was blown - and I've opened the door at, say, 9:01 and 52 seconds. In both cases, a guy was actually pounding at the door when I got to it. Not the same guy - I'm not sure whether that's scarier or not. Both guys almost flipped out when I took the time to slide the sign from "closed" to "open" before turning the lock.
It gets pretty full at 9am on Saturdays and Sundays. I don't know if people are just getting up or if they stayed up or what. I just know they've been waiting for porn until they almost can't stand it.
...And eye-opening. I love seeing these jaded, seen-it-all perspectives on subjects like this that still are able to discern a great deal of mystery and magic in the world, despite the aggressive de-romanticization of it all that you get from a job like "porn store clerk". It really gives the mind a tick-over or two, to see what kinds of damage our social mores do to people's psychology, and yet how healthful and strengthening and non-damaging it can be for a person to be exposed to all levels of something supposedly "desensitizing". To be desensitized doesn't mean to be rendered incapable of enjoyment or taste. Quite, indeed, the opposite.
Great stuff. I'm not done with it yet myself.
|
| Saturday, July 13, 2002 |
03:21 - Stamping Out Engrish
http://mdn.mainichi.co.jp/news/20020712p2a00m0fp030000c.html
|
(top) |
Hey, look-- according to Mainichi Daily News, Japan is taking an active concerned interest in how their grasp of English is being ridiculed abroad and costing them credibility.
Under the title, "English Strategy Initiative," the report recommends that high school graduates be required to "hold daily conversation in English." For university graduates, the recommendation requires that they be able to use the language in their jobs and research.
The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology became concerned about the nation's English ability apparently because the average scores of Japanese in major English tests for non-native speakers have been poor.
The average score for Japanese examinees in the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) stands at 513 out of the total 667 points possible. The score ranks 144th among the 156 nations and regions where the TOEFL is regularly conducted.
Among 23 Asian countries, Japan's score ranks a pitiful 22nd.
Wow. I had no idea that what we'd grown to accept as camp actually had a basis in fact.
But I know I'll miss seeing old ladies walking around with t-shirts that say "RAPE ME" in huge letters, and restaurant ads that say "Domestic careful selection pork with little fat of female liking is used; it has healthy vegetables with salad feeling fully."
On another note, though, I can't help but notice-- the Japanese certainly seem to have more exciting headlines than we do. Just look down the left-hand column at the following "Top News" links:
- S. Korean questioned over fake World Cup tickets
- Judo tournament bans kids with plucked eyebrows
- ANA plane makes emergency landing after woman dies
- Man runs down son while washing car
- Outrage greets origami stork sales
- Man pounds baby girl senseless
- Top university student molests first grader
- Fascist thugs bash breakaway members
- Suspect claims lack of love refutes stalker charges
- Suicide leap thwarted by 35-cm gap on tracks
- Pornographic vending machine sparks bust
- Severed head belongs to slain hostess
I mean, dude, man!
|
|
00:17 - Chunnel Across the Species Gap
http://hikeryote.blogspot.com/2002_07_14_hikeryote_archive.html#78928100
|
(top) |
I address the following to the set of (readers who own cats) + (Lileks). If your identity mask combines positively with this set definition, you must follow the link.
Hiker has just had a moment involving his cat, accomplishing-- well, maybe accomplishing isn't quite the right word for it; but doing something that has contributed another valuable fragment of data to the body of human knowledge about the mind of the cat, the feline body of knowledge about the human mind, and the fateful but impenetrable interaction between the two that has remained so fitfully static for so many thousand years.
It's confusing. It makes no sense. But it changes everything I thought I knew about my cat. I thought I was just this huge, lumbering force that delivered food unto her dish and occassionally offended her dignity by picking her up and showing affection. Now that there is a chance that she might respect me, albeit in some strange feline way, I must reassess how I behave in order to return that respect.
You're curious; I know you are.
And you know what a cat would do in such circumstances.
|
| Thursday, July 11, 2002 |
11:40 - These are humans we're dealing with here
|
(top) |
In a post to the RISKS list, Peter da Silva explains why Palladium is an outstanding idea-- if only we were all machines who obeyed rules and didn't continually find ingenious ways to get around onerous security measures.
The referenced article included such gems as "Palladium stops viruses and worms. The system won't run unauthorized programs, preventing viruses from trashing your system." Setting aside all the other issues in the article, this by itself is a remarkable piece of misdirection.
Why? Well, let's look at viruses...
There are four main avenues that viruses and worms use to spread. There are others, but the vast majority of outbreaks have used these avenues of attack.
The first, and oldest, is "social engineering". You trick a human into running a program for you. This is the electronic equivalent of calling up the sysop at a company and saying "hey, this is Jack Smith in accounting, I can't get in, I forgot my password because I had it programmed into my mail program, can you clear it for me?". Making the OS more secure can help somewhat, but you don't need to wait for Palladium to do this... most multi-user operating systems are designed so that users normally run with restricted privileges, and so can only damage their own files... not the OS or other user's programs.
The second is exploiting a straightforward bug, usually a buffer overflow. To fix this you don't need a new security model, you need a programming language that doesn't allow buffer overflows.
The third is a "cross frame attack": you trick the client software (web browser, e-mail program, music player) into running untrusted code without restrictions. This is almost always an attack on Microsoft's poorly-advised merge of the web browser (which is almost always dealing with untrusted objects) with the desktop, mail software, and so on. If they had integrated the HTML rendering engine in the OS and left the Internet access code in a separate program that used the HTML rendering code but otherwise managed its own access controls... at least 90% of the widespread virus outbreaks would never have happened.
The fourth is conversion attacks. You encode the message containing the attack code inside a package the outer layers of the OS or application don't know how to open. Ironically, Palladium is likely to make this kind of attack easier, because it's almost certain that part of the security model will involve separating the system up into components that don't have the keys to each other's files.
Ironically, one of the latest security issues with a Microsoft product is due to the first Palladium-type software having three of the kind of security holes I just listed above... Windows Media Player. The second of the three holes would not exist if Media Player didn't have to have access to the OS internals to implement Digital Rights Management.
Of more concern, the integration of the browser and the desktop and other components that created the possibility of "cross frame attacks" is due specifically to Microsoft's attempt to avoid complying with their original agreement with the Justice Department by bundling the Browser and the OS. Microsoft has maintained this dangerous design despite years of massive virus outbreaks caused by this decision, because otherwise they'd have to admit fault. Even now, when they have been found at fault, and there's nothing left to lose, they refuse to unbundle the Internet access from the rendering code.
So, not only has Microsoft never before shown much concern for this problem, they have actively worked to prevent a straightforward fix that they are legally required to implement. Using this issue as a hook to get more control of the computer is, well, there are polite terms for it and I'll let you decide which one to apply.
Even if you don't care about this specific issue, what does this say about their likely behaviour if security problems crop up in the design of Palladium?
You know, we can haggle about statistics and numbers all we want. We can argue over the relevance of elegance and aesthetics in computer design, and we can disagree over whether treating the Mac-vs-PC battle as a "morality play" is juvenile or seminal.
But the fact of the matter is that I feel a whole lot better commentating on things like Palladium from a position of not ever having to worry about it being a part of my future.
|
| Wednesday, July 10, 2002 |
17:37 - Cheap shot alert
http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/07/Newtoys.shtml
|
(top) |
The Cap'm is getting a new computer, and his tastes in monitors are refined.
And I finally found one; it's the dream monitor: Eizo's FlexScan F980. It's got features up the wazoo. Like most top-end monitors these days it contains a USB hub. But it's not just there for devices like mouses and keyboards, the monitor itself is actually a USB device. You can run a program on the PC which controls the monitor settings through USB, which should be pretty interesting to mess with.
Yup. That kind of thing is really neat, even today. It was awesome back in about 1992, when Apple monitors had ADB connectors for out-of-band management and control and hub duties, as they're doing now with USB. So ever since then you could adjust the stretch, positioning, keystone, parallelogram, pincushion, rotation, and other settings visually by dragging with the mouse in the OS control panels. And eventually that management channel (ADB, and later USB) was merged into the main video cable, and later still with the power cable into one connector for the entire monitor.
Those monitors were also pretty cool in that they would auto-recalibrate over time, compensating for the aging of the phosphors; they would also update the computer's ColorSync profile, so images created on that machine would still appear the way the user intended when opened on a remote machine.
It's always nice to see the rest of the industry eventually coming to recognize certain advancements as worthwhile.
(Sorry; couldn't resist.)
UPDATE: Matt Robinson notes:
Everyone knows that the Mac has had a sensible, innovative approach to hardware that the PC can't approach due to the generalisation and generic-componentisation that they have to deal with. When you control the hardware and the software, implementing an new power/graphic/usb socket is simple - for a PC manufacturer it's a bloody nightmare. I'm not excusing them, but it's not always that Apple has the best ideas: it's that Apple has the best ideas AND the ability to implement them - to change their own standards, because no one else relies on them.
I'd suggest that Apple fits the "benevolent dictatorship" model and PC is more like "sprawling beurocratic democracy". Steve decides to change something for the better and he'll kick a bit of ass, raise a bit of hell, and it'll get done. Back in the PC world, someone has an idea, but for it to be implemented, it must be economically feasible, it must be adopted by sufficient manufacturers to become popular, and have support along the line from hardware vendor to software drivers and support from Redmond. All this via endless meetings, forms in triplicate, business flights to visit allied companies, etc.
Yup. That's called "whole widget" product development. Cons: costs more, limits choice. Pros: you get kickass toys ten years before everybody else does.
|
| Tuesday, July 9, 2002 |
11:57 - It's not a browser war-- just a sanity war
http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=makali&itemid=66838
|
(top) |
Matt Robinson has some words of wisdom for the people at macsurfshop.com, who don't work with Netscape 6 because of an HTTP_REFERER bug in that browser. Matt's contention? It's a mistake to rely on the referer in the first place, for many other reasons than Netscape 6 not using it properly. He's absolutely right, too.
|
|
11:21 - How to Recognize Evil
http://www.coldfury.com/Entries/00000173.html
|
(top) |
Mike at Cold Fury responds to the people who are outraged over the Tom Tomorrow smackdown.
Hey Dan, societies that brutally repress women, don't allow any sort of dissent whatsoever, regard targeting the innocent as a legitimate war tactic, routinely and brutally murder homosexuals and other "infidels," and control every aspect of their subjects' lives are in fact evil. Just because your restrictive moral-relativist blinders won't allow you to acknowledge it doesn't make it any less true. And for all the folks whining about "censorship" and "authoritiarianism" every time a conservative or libertarian pokes around a little at the Swiss-cheese holes in your ideological consistency: deal with it. REAL authoritarians don't just deride your ideas in public forums (and allow you to post retorts in the comments section, for god's sake); they drag you from your home and shoot you in the street in front of your children, or toss you in a filthy cinder-block cell and hook up auto batteries to your testicles. And that sort of thing happens every day in the societies you're so eager to defend.
Right on. There's more too-- about the dreaded "loss of civil liberties" that seems to have taken its place by now alongside "Brutal Afghan Winter" and "Reagan's Memoirs" as potential names for Apple conference rooms.
I do follow Tom Tomorrow's strip-- he seems to be meticulous, usually, about alternating from one viewpoint to the other. One week he does a strip ridiculing Bush and Cheney and Enron, and the next he does one just as viciously lampooning the liberals. Unlike Garry Trudeau, who seems to ferret out the liberal stance no matter how elusive it might be; Perkins, though, seems to be an equal-opportunity whip-cracker. But yeah, this last one was a bit hard to take.
|
| Monday, July 8, 2002 |
00:25 - Wonder what he thinks of "Tokyo Breakfast"...
http://hikeryote.blogspot.com/?/2002_07_07_hikeryote_archive.html#78721752
|
(top) |
Michael Jackson sucks, according to Hiker. I'm inclined to agree. If he didn't before, he sure does now.
I've been of the mind that when celebrities reach about age 40, they are presented with a decision: to start making fun of themselves, or not to start doing so. Depending on the choice they make, they enter my good graces or they leave them.
William Shatner and Patrick Stewart are two prime examples of people who get more mileage out of lampooning themselves these days than taking on serious roles. For that they have my undying respect. Ah-nuld is another. Hell, even Bill Gates wins points for things like starring in that internal Microsoft parody of the VW "stinky chair" ad a few years back. And just look what happened to Bob Dole once the election spotlight skipped off his Viagra-chomping, Pepsi-swilling visage.
But Michael Jackson appears unwilling to let go of the time when he was relevant; and, like Bill Watterson and ... well, honestly, mercifully few celebrities refuse to lampoon themselves these days; even Stallone does it. But Jackson has entered a very elite club, the club of Washed-Up Ex-Celebrity Losers who get no more benefit of any doubt from me.
|
|
20:03 - Wife of LAX Shooter Says He's Innocent-- hey, stop laughing!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/07/08/lax-shooting-wife.htm
|
(top) |
I'm totally serious. She thinks he couldn't possibly have done it. Even though the whole thing was recorded from twelve different angles by airport security cameras, and police have his crusty hole-in-the-head ass in a refrigerated drawer.
"My husband didn't do such a thing. This is nonsense," 41-year-old Hala Mohammed Sadeq El-Awadly told The Associated Press on Monday in Cairo.
"Hesham called on July 4, it was his birthday. His voice was very beautiful," she said. "He asked about the boys, asked me to take them out a lot and to review their lessons with them in order to be ready for next year."
Well, golly whillikers-- you don't think that maybe, just maybe, the reason he said those things was because he knew he wouldn't be around to do it himself?
For Pete's sake-- what is wrong with these people? A couple years ago, it was Egyptian authorities and Muslims everywhere who were convinced that the EgyptAir pilot who dumped his plane into the ocean couldn't possibly have done it as an act of suicide-- because suicide is prohibited in the Koran, and the pilot was a Muslim. It's just not possible! Never mind the black-box recordings with the pilot's voice asking for forgiveness from Allah, and the instrument recorders showing him turning off the autopilot. Those things mean nothing, because he was a Muslim, and Muslims don't do things like that.
Does reality have no bearing at all on these people's brains?
El-Awadly said she did not believe her husband was responsible for the July 4 shooting and was being blamed because he was Arab and Muslim.
"He is a victim of injustice," she said three times. "In America, they hate Islam and Arabs after Sept. 11."
@#$%*#. @#$%*#. @#$%*#.
(Saying something three times makes it true, doesn't it?)
|
| Sunday, July 7, 2002 |
17:56 - Moooom, make the freaky Muslims go away
|
(top) |
From the list that has so far brought me (quite without my asking) hand-wringing discussions of whether Muslims are allowed to dissect frogs or cook with wine, or whether non-Muslim women are any better than slave harlots, today we have this following-- er-- article.
I understand that this is aimed for Muslim readers, and that there's probably plenty more of the same on any Muslim website one might care to mention. But still: this came into my mailbox, and I think everybody has a right to experience the love and joy the way I have.
I don't write this stuff, I just repost it with added bold emphasis.
STRUGGLE WITH THE JEWS
Our Struggle with the Jews is a Struggle for Existence, not a Struggle for Land
Author: Al-Asaalah Magazine Editorial Staff Source: Al-Asaalah Magazine, Issue 30 (pg. 5-6) Translator: abu maryam Produced by: al-manhaj.com
The enemies of Islaam and the ignorant people that follow them are trying to portray the reality of the struggle against the Jews as a struggle for land and borders, and as a problem of refugees and water ports. And they make it seem as if it is possible to end this struggle with peaceful coexistence and by compensating the refugees, rectifying their condition of living, dispersing them throughout the land and establishing a weak petty secular state, which will live under the Zionist power and which will serve as a shield for the Zionist state (against their surrounding enemies). But all of these people don’t realize that our struggle with the Jews goes way back, ever since the first Islamic state was established in Madeenah with Muhammad, the Messenger sent to all of mankind, as its leader. Allaah has related to us in the Qur’aan, the reality of the Jews’ malice and hatred for the ummah of Islaam and Tawheed, as he says: “You will surely find that the people with the most enmity towards the believers are the Jews and the polytheists.” [Surah Al-Maa’idah: 82]
So see how Allaah has placed the Jews before the polytheists in their hatred and enmity (towards the Muslims). Even though they are united in their disbelief, they differ (from others) in their (immense) hatred towards the ummah of Muhammad, as Allaah says: “The Jews and the Christians will never be pleased with you until you follow their religion (way).” [Surah Al-Baqarah: 120]
And ever since the first hour in which the Muslims let the beautiful fragrance of Islaam flow through it (Madeenah), the Jews were there showing enmity to the Muslims and their Prophet. So our Prophet, Muhammad, was not safe from the harm of the Jews amongst their ranks. They tried to kill him three times. One time, they tried to kill him by putting a heavy rock on his head. Another time was when they placed poison in the forearm of a goat (for him to eat). And a third case was when the Jewish boy, Lubaid bin al-A’asam, may Allaah’s curse be on him, put a magic spell on him.
And lo, there are the Americans, supplying the Jews with the most ferocious and harmful weapons of destruction, so that they can kill the Muslim children, women and elderly people of Palestine. And they preoccupied the world with their American elections for the purpose of drawing attention away from the Jewish massacre and butchering of the Muslim people of Palestine.
And lo! There are the British, who supply the Jews with loud and explosive ammunition, which when used result in horrific deaths and everlasting handicapping for the youth of Palestine. So this ummah (nation of Palestinians) are open prey - whether young or old, infant or woman – in the hands of the Jews and their supporters.
And lo! There are the supporters of the Jews, who preoccupy the ummah and draw their attention away from the casualties suffered by the Muslim people of Palestine. And they make the people blind to the crimes committed by the Jews by broadcasting the Olympics and other worthless programs, which only make the ummah numb and put it to sleep!
Don’t the Muslims know that our struggle against the Jews is a struggle of Creed and a struggle of Religious livelihood? Don’t they realize that it is a struggle of culture, a struggle to remain in existence, a struggle of identification? Wasn’t it the Jews who set fire to Al-Masjid Al-Aqsaa? Weren’t they the ones who initiated archeological excavations under it, (ruining its foundation), so that afterward it can crumble on its own?? Weren’t they the ones who killed Muslims while they were prostrating in the month of Ramadaan in Masjid Al-Khaleel?!? Did they not cut open the stomachs of pregnant women, murder babies and set fire to the pastures and the farmlands!? Wasn’t it the Jews who transformed the masjids of Palestine into bars of alcohol and gambling?! Did they not turn them into compounds for animals and garbage dumps?!?
Then after all of this, it is said: “Our struggle against the Jews is a struggle for land and a border dispute!!” And the desired solution is to establish a petty Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, so that the followers of the three monotheistic – or so they claim - faiths can live in it. Are these people ignorant of the fact that the only Religion acceptable in the sight of Allaah is Islaam? Or are they ignorant of the fact that Ibraheem is free and absolved from the polytheism and idolatry the Jews and Christians are upon. “Ibraaheem was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but rather he was Haneef (worshipping Allaah alone), a Muslim. And he was not from the polytheists.” [Surah Aali ‘Imraan: 67]
Indeed, the only solution, which the Jews will understand, is Jihaad – done with its proper conditions – to raise high the Word of Allaah. The Jews do not want peace, rather they only want that this ummah surrender and submit itself to them, and that it bow and debase itself to them. And they want that it wipe out the word Jihaad from its vocabulary! They want them to become slaves, employees and laborers for them, having the right to beat them with their shoes and lash them with their whips whenever they feel like it!
Our real struggle with the Jews will not end by setting up a withered state that doesn’t raise the banner of Islaam nor establishes the Laws of Allaah. How can it come to an end when the Muslim recites in his prayer seventeen times - day and night – “And do not make us from those who gained Your Anger nor from those who went astray.” [Surah Al-Faatihah: 7]
Those who “gained Your Anger” are the Jews and those who “went astray” are the Christians, according to the unanimous agreement of the Tafseer scholars, and this is so until the Day of Judgement.
So the decisive battle in which the Jews will come to an end will most assuredly come to pass – it is inevitable. It will be a battle of Faith and a battle of servitude to Allaah. The Prophet (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: “You will indeed fight against the Jews and you will kill them to the point where the rock and the tree will say: ‘O Muslim! O ‘Abdullaah (slave of Allaah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him.’ Except for al-Gharqad for it is from the trees of the Jews.”
This is a true promise from the one who doesn’t speak from his own desire (Prophet Muhammad), which confirms the true nature of our struggle against the Jews, unlike what the misguided and misguiding media is portraying.
www.al-manhaj.com
My, my. It's fully annotated with citations from the Koran and everything. That means it must be true.
That's what I find so tragically endearing about all this, in the way that one might see a kid weeping bitterly over the death of his favorite Pokémon, or some Net junkie committing suicide over some in-game tragedy in Everquest. Within the context of an alternate reality, events which may or may not have ever happened are accepted as gospel historical fact, and the fact that the rest of the world doesn't accept such claims as fact is irrelevant-- it just means the rest of the world is insane or demonic. They just don't understaaaaand! I mean, look at some of these statements: Are these people ignorant of the fact that the only Religion acceptable in the sight of Allaah is Islaam? What, are we some kinda idiots? What's wrong with us? How can we be so blind?
They put a heavy rock on our hero's head! Now we must kill them all! Has there ever been anything so infantile?
I wonder if these people are even capable of understanding allegorical satire, like the "Frodo Baggins Indicted for War Crimes" article at Cold Fury?
As I've said before, there are only two possible lessons we can learn from stuff like this:
- Islam is right, the Koran is the verbatim Word of Allah, and the entire world must submit to Sharia Law and destroy the Jews for their Koranic crimes, or
- Believing the words of a book written centuries ago by superstitious tribes of nomads, and accepting those stories as anything but allegorical fables from which to gain guidance for daily personal conduct, is the height of human gullibility and weakness of mind-- and is only going to result in more 9/11s as time goes on.
Those are the only two choices. Really. That's it.
|
|
15:33 - What a Place to Live
|
(top) |
I was on my way to pick up some lunch, and noticed that not only were the mountains in front of me as clear as day, but so were the ones off to my left-- northward into the East Bay-- and so were the ones behind me, on the western side above Cupertino. So I went on past Taco Bell and up Quimby Road.
Once again, I wish my camera weren't in the shop. The picture at right is from several months ago, and it doesn't do today's view justice at all.
It was perfectly clear, with visibility for a hundred miles; I could not only see Mt. Tamalpais in the North Bay, but I could see the fog at its base and pick out individual buildings in downtown San Francisco.
That's what's so nice about summer around here. Whereas in LA, summer is the smoggiest time, and only briefly during the winter are the mountain ridges crisply visible-- in Silicon Valley, May and October, for some reason, are the only really hot months; in between, it's cool and breezy, and the air clears itself out for weekend views, so I can go up Quimby Road or into the Santa Cruz Mountains on a lazy morning and stand there taking pictures or just staring. It's about as comfortable as though I'm standing under an air-conditioner vent all day; I could stand out there all day long if I want to.
Garrison Keillor on the radio, bicyclists nodding and waving as they labor their way up the slope, distant cars and planes speckling the landscape... it reminds one that this place once was called the Valley of Heart's Delight. Must have been quite a sight, when people could look across it from this same location, before there was anything but a few scattered little towns here and there, or even when it was full of orchards.
... Bah, I'm rambling. But I tend to do that when it's a clear day.
|
| Saturday, July 6, 2002 |
16:06 - The Middle-Earth Criminal Court
http://www.coldfury.com/Entries/00000163.html
|
(top) |
If there was ever a Cold Fury article that deserved linking to, purely on the merit of its smartness of ass, it's this one.
This is a war of good-vs-evil, whether some countries want to admit it or not. The UN and related bodies are beginning to look to me like 13-year-old girls who think that the can approach and enter a tiger cage with impunity, if they just hold out their hands so the tiger can sniff. Then they'll turn all tame, and they can scratch their cheeks and bat around balls of yarn and play with string and stuff. Right?
If they don't watch out, they're going to end up tiger chow. And I'm going to laugh.
|
| Friday, July 5, 2002 |
20:26 - Now that's reasoning...
|
(top) |
Okay, so maybe this Islamic mailing list will turn out to be fairly amusing after all.
Today I got a message that consisted of two pictures of groups of Muslim women, one of which showed them being shoved or herded by Turkish police, and the other of which showed them weeping. The heading was "Jewish ally Turkey attacks women in Hijab". There was no other text to the story.
Totally laying aside for now the spin-- namely, that whatever happened here between the Turkish police and the Muslim women who were wearing the traditional hijab (which has apparently been banned in Turkey), it's obviously more significant that Turkey is a state that sympathizes with Israel than that they are a Muslim state. We can't be publishing headlines showing that Muslims are persecuting Muslims, can we? Nooo, it must be because they're "Jewish allies". But that's not even what I wanted to point out.
What I wanted to mention was the signature on the post. It read as follows:
"Why do you fear the word terrorist?... If a terrorist is one who struggles in the way of Allah, than we are terrorists." Sheikh Umar'Abd Ar-Rahman { statement made by the former leader of Jamiyya tul Islamiyya (Egypt), during his interragation of the WTO bombing back in 1995}
Brilliant, innit? I love it. Now, I don't know the circumstances of the origin of this quote (though I daresay the question Ar-Rahman was asked was something to the effect of "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of any terrorist organization?"); but its subtext, and indeed its text, are just a grand specimen of weaselry. I would imagine Muslims aren't allowed to lie before Allah, or something, so this was his way of saying yes. "Am I a terrorist? Well, if you're asking whether I'm a Muslim, because obviously you Americans equate terrorist with Muslim, then yes, that's what I am."
Except, of course, that's clearly not what he was being asked. And so what's come out of his mouth is startlingly symptomatic of the mindset that so many Muslim extremists seem to embrace: that our concept of terrorist is a quaint and provincial one, something that has no meaning for Muslims-- only for Westerners. Only we would be so petty and secular as to label with a special derogatory term those who give their own lives for the cause of destroying enemy civilians. Because that, after all, is just part of jihad. Those stupid Americans just don't understand that.
This quote is somebody's signature, for crying-out-loud. It's inspirational to somebody. Somebody reads this sentence and gains strength and resolve from it.
Can we declare this religion to be officially hepped-up on goofballs yet?
|
| Thursday, July 4, 2002 |
22:46 - Just a few thoughts
|
(top) |
This seems as good a time as any to quote some lines from Preacher:
I like this country, Jesse. I like baseball and whiskey and Mom's apple pie-- not my mom's apple pie, but you know what I mean-- and the Stars and Stripes, and John Wayne, and fireworks on the Fourth of July.
And I like the myth of the place. The myth of America: that simple, honest men, born of her great plains and woods and skies have made a nation of her, and will prove worthy of her when the time is right.
Under harsh light it is false. But a good myth to live up to, all the same.
These words, penned by English writer Garth Ennis-- who had been raised on Westerns starring John Wayne and Gary Cooper and Clint Eastwood-- and spoken through the character of Gunther Hahn, a German expatriate who had once murdered civilians as part of a Nazi police battalion, but had come to live in Texas in the hope that he would be given a second chance by the country whose ideals really spoke to him-- are worth reviewing in these times. America isn't perfect; hell, it's far from it. We are, after all, a nation consisting of humans. But the mistakes we make are the mistakes anyone makes. There are evil people in every country, but this is one place where that kind of evil has never taken root to a degree where it pervades the lives of people who choose to live apart from it. We believe in small and simple things: individual choice, most notably. The choice to live however we choose, as long as it doesn't adversely affect the people around us. We believe in having fun, making money, and enjoying the fruits of our honest labors free of guilt, and we believe very strongly in giving a hand-up to anybody who thinks the same way we do. We know we're right, after all, and while we're not going to go out of our way to convince others of it, we'll give endlessly to those who are willing to make the same sacrifices we've made in pursuit of the same goals.
We're not perfect, and indeed there are a lot of things wrong with this country. So we feel pangs of guilt for crowing about our country's success and happiness and ideals. We're also hardly what anybody can call "embattled"-- after all, we've only really suffered the one major attack, and it was the better part of a year ago already; and even at that, it was perpetrated by a bunch of rag-tag schemers who got lucky, not by some omnipotent Matrix who can rain death on us at will. We have neither sympathy nor adoration flowing our way from the rest of the world, and so we tend to feel as though we don't have the right to feel proud of our country. Certainly we look at countries like, say, Germany-- where flying the flag is thought of as something only Nazis would do-- and our guilt forces us to think that we'd better follow suit. We take a lot of heat for acting "too American" and for exporting our culture to where it's not welcome.
But today-- bullshit, I say. We've seen the future; really, we saw it over 200 years ago, and today the vision is pretty much the same. We know we're right. We know we have the moral high ground.
Because deeds trump words-- and while some nations have to tell everybody of how moral and Chosen and righteous they are, and why they're the rightful inheritors of the stewardship of the planet... well, we're the ones who don't have to tell everybody that. We can show it. One has only to look.
And you know-- we're not so bad, really. Especially compared to the alternative.
In 1776, the vision was about baseball and whiskey and Mom's apple pie-- well, the conteporary equivalents, anyway. And today, what do we dream about? The same things, more or less. The concepts are the same. And over 200 years of chasing those concepts have made them into more than goals and dreams: they're our way of life. They're what we have as well as what we want. And that, friends, is called success.
It's all the proof Hahn needed; and it's more than enough for me to spend at least this one evening-- having just come down from the top of the hill after watching all of Silicon Valley ablaze with fireworks for over an hour, the sound of rolling thunder across the valley a sound of reassurance and celebration rather than of fear, and listening to Hindu and Sikh and Mexican and Vietnamese and Muslim and Thai families all up and down my neighborhood setting off illegal firecrackers that at this very moment are continuing to boom and crackle outside my window-- sitting back and enjoying it for its own sake. It's all the proof I need, too.
The nations that hate us do so because of jealousy. And that's nothing for us to be ashamed of. We are under no obligation to meet them halfway or come down to their level. They want to be jealous, that's their problem. But we don't need to lose a wink of sleep over it; it's their choice. We're forging ahead. If they don't want to come along, then they can get out of the way.
I need not elucidate what happens if they don't.
But those who do, if they're willing to see it as such, will have done the right thing. In every sense of the term.
|
|
19:29 - Celebrate the independence of your country by blowing up a small part of it!
|
(top) |
Well, four hours to go-- and so far all we've had is a shootout at LAX and a small plane crash in San Dimas. And only the former seems to have a possibility of being connected with terrorism.
Then there's yesterday's stupefying arrest of Saddam Hussein's stepson on a visa violation, here to take aviation classes at the same school that taught the 9/11 hijackers.
Then there's the Central African Republic plane crash, which looks like an accident, and a Gaza car bomb, the latest in a series.
C'mon, you bastards. Is that all you've got? C'moooon.
|
|
13:17 - Freedom Is...
http://seanbaby.com/personal/fireworks.htm
|
(top) |
... People like Seanbaby being allowed to get away with the things he does in this article, and then write a four-page article will full photographic documentation describing the aftermath, and publish it for us to see.
12 hours down, and still nothing blown up that we didn't intend.
|
|
12:56 - Hooray for the USA
http://www.tostitos.com/news/
|
(top) |
Further to Lileks' 4th of July Bleat, I must offer this further witness to the glory of the land we call home:
Tostitos SCOOPS.
Now through a breakthrough snack innovation, the TOSTITOS® brand introduces new TOSTITOS® SCOOPS!™ Tortilla Chips. TOSTITOS® SCOOPS!™ Tortilla Chips are the dip lover's chip. The bite size chip's unique shape holds more dip to deliver more flavor and crunch with every bite.
Meanwhile, that Islamic mailing list I got subscribed to (without any action on my part) is now full of people asking each other whether they're allowed to dissect rats or cook with wine. "How would you like it if I urinated on your food before cooking it, and then told you it had all been burned away?"
Happy 4th, everyone.
|
| Wednesday, July 3, 2002 |
22:01 - Well, God damn...
http://robots.cnn.com/2002/US/07/03/hussein.stepson/index.html
|
(top) |
How frickin' stupid are these people?
|
|
18:37 - Minority Report Report
|
(top) |
Chris and I saw Minority Report last night, and I must say it's every bit as good as everyone has said. It's a lavish and surprising storyline with lots of very satisfying twists, the cinematography is somehow both rich and gritty, the casting and characterization is outstanding (the woman in the greenhouse merits buying the DVD all on her own), and the tech design is truly something to behold. I so dearly love it when a movie about The Future (2054 in this case, I believe) doesn't look entirely alien-- you know, a setting that looks about as odd to us as today's world would look to people in 1950. Yes, the infrastructure is somewhat different, there's a lot more technology in people's pockets and on people's desks-- but it's still all cars and roads and ice-cream cones. Likewise, in MR, the cars are ingeniously designed to fit into a chaotic but well-organized commuter structure, and they've got those transparent computer screens that moviemakers are so fond of-- sitting right alongside spray-bottles and lawn sprinklers and kids' bicycles and playground equipment that could just as easily have been bought in Wal-Mart today. That kitchen timer that the eye surgeon uses (another brilliant character, by the way) is styled like a timer from the 1970s, but with a luminous and interactive dial. Instead of the "future of the past" that the Rocket Age gave us (think Jetsons), here we have a future with retro. I love it.
Likewise, the virtual interface that the cops use to sort through the imagery they're fed is a brilliant piece of iconic humans-interacting-with-machines the like of which I haven't seen since Fritz Lang's Metropolis; it's the same kind of system of gestures, firm and forceful-- something of a three-way cross between Tae Kwon Do, cyborg-like mechanical movements, and the nuanced touch of a symphony orchestra conductor. (The classical music overlaying the scenes where Tom Cruise conjures up those images is just as effective as the warm chamber jazz in Cowboy Bebop-- which is to say, very much so.)
And there's so much unexpected humor in the movie. The way the quarrelling couple interacts with the spiders, the cereal box with the moving digital-ink logos-- the script smirks at you from beginning to end, not letting up even when the action gets heaviest. It's hard to suppress the giggles when Cruise tries to pull his old eyeballs out of a bag to show to the retina-scanners, and they roll down a slope and into a drain grating like a couple of prized aggies.
But...
There's one problem with this movie, without which it would be drop-dead brilliant. (This is actually Chris' observation, but I'm sure he won't mind me broadcasting it-- after all, he doesn't have a blog; he just fact-checks mine's ass.) It's the last two minutes. The movie gets Spielberged. Right up to the last gunshot, the plot careens and power-glides, jerking the audience expertly back and forth... but then, right after that last shot, you'd better just stand up and walk out of the theater and not look back. Because everything gets tied up with a neat little warm and happy epilogue that feels entirely out of place. It's like hearing "And they lived happily ever after" at the end of The Terminator. As the credits rolled, Chris sat in his seat shouting at the screen: NOOOOOO! YOU BASTAAAARD! DAMN YOUUUUU!
...Incidentally, am I the only one who noticed that this movie and Harry Potter seemed to be cut from the same cloth? They both have funky tendril-vines that grab for you, and they both are packed full of pictures that move-- newspapers, cereal boxes, trading cards, wall ads, paintings. It's like Harry Potter is really just the future-- you know, because the technology in Minority Report is sufficiently advanced that we can't distinguish it from magic.
... Okay, maybe I should just shut up before I dig myself in waaay too deep.
|
|
18:00 - Tomorrow
|
(top) |
The fireworks have already started going off. I heard and saw a lot of them last night. That's two full days early. I can't remember that ever happening before.
What do I think is going to happen tomorrow? I don't know. I suspect that there will be some kind of major attack attempted, but it will be foiled; and we probably won't find out about it until a month or so later.
Myself? I'll probably be staying home, maybe taking a ride through some backroads. If everything's still standing when I get back, I expect I'll feel pretty darn good.
|
|
17:56 - We'll show them what freely held elections are all about...
http://talg.blogspot.com/2002_06_30_talg_archive.html#78505990
|
(top) |
From Tal G:
Some other [Palestinian] demonstrators explained what the "right to decide" means:
"Any collaborator who would represent himself an alternative to [Arafat] will be executed in the public square," said the message, which echoed through the streets as armed men fired in the air.
See, there's the rub. "Peace negotiations" are a concept that depends on both sides willing to reach a compromise, mutual sacrifices and voluntary changes that allow both sides to retain a measure of their respective aims.
But... these people don't compromise. Everything's all-or-nothing. I hate to say it, but it is a black-and-white world to many, many people out there; and when one side persists in thinking that it's all about shades of gray, the other side (who sees it all in black-and-white) will cause a lot of people to die while we wait for the gray-shaders to define terms and write up resolutions.
These are the rules of this game. We either play using tactics that can win, or we change the rules altogether. We can't beat a bunch of football players if we arm ourselves with ping-pong racquets.
|
|
09:55 - The Word of Love Spreads
http://www.coldfury.com/Entries/00000152.html
|
(top) |
Mike at Cold Fury seems to have run across the now-semi-famous article by Courtney Love on record companies, Napster, and the RIAA, which has surfaced in a new location-- namely, her band Hole's own website.
Says Mike,
Maybe Courtney ought to take up blogging.
Yeah, check out the "News" box on holemusic.com's main page. Kinda looks like she's already doing that.
Which doesn't surprise me, really; Courtney's seemed to have a very progressive and admirable view of technology, from what I've seen-- kinda like discovering blogs by people like Ian McKellen. Love's article, to the best of my knowledge, was first published in Salon in June 2000, and it's been circulating back and forth since then, appearing here in this blog from time to time. I wonder if maybe I should see if I can set up a permalink to it so I can be doing my part to make sure everybody has a chance to read it.
I don't use her article to give myself carte blanche to steal music indiscriminately. I still think that's wrong, and will continue to be as long as our current system endures. But I do use the article to inform my opinion about what's going to happen to the music industry-- the record companies are going to have to undergo a catastrophic transformation if they're going to survive at all, and it's going to happen very soon. And in the meantime, I don't lose too much sleep over whether a stolen CD worth of MP3s is hurting the artists-- because I know from this that it's hurting only artists who "fear their own filler", as Love puts it, and it's hurting the labels a helluva lot more.
In all honesty, the first time I'd ever heard of Courtney Love was when I was reading this article; the only indication that I had of her being some kind of reviled figure in music was the lascivious picture of her at the top of the article in Salon. I figured she must be somebody that most people consider a ditzy blonde slut, and reading the article I was inclined to believe there's a lot more going on in her head-- in particular, a greatly sarcastic sense of irony-- than most people are likely to realize.
If this is the voice people need to hear delivering the message, hey, let it be so.
|
| Tuesday, July 2, 2002 |
13:50 - Palladium Laid Bare
http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories/story/0,10738,2873149,00.html
|
(top) |
Newsweek's Steven Levy (most notably) broke the story of Microsoft's "Palladium" initiative-- the one where they propose to incorporate hardware-level public-key crypto authentication and digital-rights-management into every computer. However, if I'm reading this article by David Coursey aright, Levy's scoop was something that Microsoft had hoped not to have to talk about for a good long time yet.
But then some smart reporters--including Michael Cherry of Directions on Microsoft (a frequent radio guest of mine) and Newsweek's Steven Levy--discovered that Microsoft had filed for a patent on an operating system with built-in digital rights management features.
Microsoft tried to keep a lid on the story for as long as possible. But after finding out that Levy was going to print something, the company invited him to Redmond for two days to hear the whole story. Even then, Microsoft didn't expect the story to run so soon. When it discovered that Levy's story was about to hit the streets, Microsoft barely had time to warn those of us who were maintaining our silence that the secret was almost out of the bag.
I'm telling you all this because Microsoft would have been better off staying silent on this one. The reports that are surfacing are going to raise many more questions than Microsoft has answers for.
I'm really starting to like Coursey. He's exactly what I like to see in the tech press: a reporter who's not afraid to go out, do some digging, try new things, and change his stance and opinions if what he finds disagrees with his preconceptions. No, he wasn't one of those who were taken up to Redmond for the emergency Palladium indoctrination-- but he's revealing something a good deal more important than what Microsoft has cobbled together by way of boilerplate; namely, the circumstances surrounding this scoop in the first place.
Levy, after all, didn't mention that Palladium wasn't supposed to have been announced this early or under these circumstances.
(Coursey'd always been a Windows guy, and fairly pro-Microsoft. He barely gave Apple a nod. But earlier this year, he undertook the now-famous "Month on a Mac", which extended to three months and perhaps longer because he didn't want to have to send his iMac back. He's now as likely as any Mac rumor site to write a column on Apple happenings, and he's as critical of Windows XP and Microsoft (and Palladium) as one could hope. And to dispel any accusations of favoritism, he spent a "Month on Linux", which recently ended; he concluded that Linux had a lot of things to recommend it, but not as a consumer desktop OS. No, he's a Mac guy now, at least in large part-- and presuming that Apple isn't paying him off, he's a prime example of someone who's willing to open his mind and have it changed through first-hand experience.)
Coursey's now interviewed the same people Levy has, and he's come to the same kinds of conclusions-- though, perhaps because he didn't go through the indoctrination procedure (evidently he was too busy being inculcated in the Tablet PC propaganda intended to convince him that the fact that Microsoft's handwriting recognition sucks Tiger Eyes is immaterial because "handwriting recognition doesn't matter"), his challenge to Microsoft is couched in more severe terms. Coursey isn't impressed. He wants answers to the questions that we're all asking: namely, what the hell business does Microsoft, the creator of 90% of all security holes in software today, have in undertaking to become the sole guardian of all of our digital identities and rights and capabilities and data? Who in their right mind trusts Microsoft to write security software?
The TalkBack people seem to agree with him, though I'm not reading anything but the titles on the posts. Nobody seems to have any faith in Microsoft's ability to pull this off-- the consensus is that this will be a disaster on an unprecedented scale. Nobody wants to see it happen. We know that computing will be fundamentally different in terms of security and privacy ten years from now-- but we know that Microsoft isn't the company we want to see do it.
And now that the cat's out of the bag early, there's time for the outrage to spread, and maybe do some good.
|
| Monday, July 1, 2002 |
16:17 - THE MOOD IS ABOUT TO CHANGE
|
(top) |
I just got a piece of unsolicited e-mail that appears to be a mailing-list subscription message; if I'm reading it right, I've just been signed up, quite without my knowledge, for a Yahoo group called "Ar Rahman ~The International Islamic Foundation".
The welcome message was blank; the group's goals seem to be about general Islamic discussion, prayer timetables and stuff-- nothing sinister on the surface.
Then there's this footer at the bottom of the intro message:
~THE MOOD IS ABOUT TO CHANGE...~
...Really? To what? From what?
I guess I'll see soon enough...
|
|
12:50 - Random Thought
|
(top) |
Is it just me, or is there no less sexy thing you can possibly call someone than "baby"?
I mean, what the hell?
|
|
12:02 - California Dreamin'
|
(top) |
You know, it's really sort of disconcerting to discover how disconnected one can become from general, popular, non-blogosphere-related opinion when one goes on vacation from the computer.
While in Nashville, for example, one friend that I met there-- who is otherwise a very fun guy, very talented and very sensible-- spent one car ride from one point to another on a little ranting tangent. It went sort of like this:
It's so ridiculous, this whole "War on Terrorism" thing. I mean, you declare war on a country, not a person-- and it was just one person behind 9/11. But no, now we're being condemned by every country in the world for going in and effectively nuking a third-world country-- I mean, what was the point of going in and bombing Afghanistan into the Stone Age? They were already in the Stone Age! ... And you know it's all just because we're helping out the Israelis. I don't understand why we're helping the Israelis in the first place...
"Because the Israelis are a capitalistic, freedom-loving democracy who has made the desert bloom, and the Muslim nations fighting against them are a bunch of medieval, fascistic, petty-warlord-based fanatical theocracies whose stated goal is the destruction of the West", I didn't say. No, I bit my tongue in the interest of harmony. But nobody's keeping me from blogging this.
I must admit, Nashville wasn't a place where I would have expected to find rampant anti-globo and anti-Zionist and anti-US-policy flowing. I come from Silicon Valley to Tennessee and find myself in a liberal swing so hard the wheel's locked against the stop? Whatever. But it seems to me that if one doesn't look terribly hard at the details behind any of the news that filters by on CNN's headline crawl, it's pretty easy to conclude that we deserve every blown-up building in New York or Tel Aviv. After all, quoting Churchill out of context is always a quick and easy way to appear cultured; talk about making the rubble bounce, and you're sure to get people nodding sagely about how stupid we are to have done anything but declare the 19 hijackers to have been adequately punished for their crimes by the suicide itself, and since they obviously acted alone, do nothing to root out any so-called state-sponsored terrorist organization that may or may not have sent them.
But, like I said, I didn't say a word. And if it's any consolation to me, most everybody else in the group seemed to be sitting in a throat-clearing silence as well, and a quick change of subject got things rolling again. But I tell you, I'm glad for more reasons than just the humidity to be back in California.
While we were on the disc golf course, I was musing to one of the guys about how no matter how expensive it is to rent housing around here, I'd still rather live in California than anywhere else. He looked genuinely surprised, and wanted to know why. I hadn't really thought about it, actually, and as I lined up my shot all I could say was, "The weather rocks, the food is excellent, and the people rule."
But I've traveled now to every part of the US except for Alaska, and I can say quite confidently that living anywhere else is just not something I could imagine. Maybe Oregon or Washington, sure-- but there's just something special about this state, whether our governor is corrupt and our power is expensive and in short supply or not.
Maybe it's the landscape. The mountains around here are spectacular, I'm sorry-- and it isn't until I visit other areas of the country (e.g. the South), where the landscape is one anonymous wooded rolling hill after another, where you can't see any interesting topography on the horizon, where the lenticular haze in the air makes distant clouds fade into indistinct light-gray ghosts at the edge of vision, where the only interesting objects breaking up the line of trees are the sixty-foot fast-food restaurant signs that cluster around freeway exits like redwood groves-- that I understand just how special a thing it is to see burly and severe hills thirty or forty miles away, the fog rolling over them through the low passes, the detail on their sides and around the edges of the fog and clouds as crisp as though they were right above your head. Being able to drive up Quimby Road and see the dark and light patches on Mt. Tamalpais north of the Golden Gate, sixty miles away, is something that makes my heart race. Maybe not everybody's... but mine, yes indeed it does.
Maybe it's that in the urban areas, space is at such a premium that the roads themselves take on personalities. Go ten miles outside the Bay Area and suddenly you're in rural farmland-- but within the city, each street has a history and a face. Lawrence Expressway. Montague Expressway. San Tomas Expressway. El Camino Real. You can stand on a Civil War battlefield and know that the Blue and the Gray fought right there on that spot-- but somehow it isn't as real as standing on a bustling commuter artery that you know two hundred years ago connected the Spanish missions up and down the coast, and was just as vital a thoroughfare as it is today.
Maybe it's that here, people are friendly but not invasive. Stand at a bus stop with strangers, and you'll get smiles and nods all around, but no boisterous and paternal conversation or stories about people's home lives. Everybody here is understood to be a mover and/or a shaker, and we figure that if that person over there wanted to be talked to, he or she would have said so. So: no outright hostility, á la New York. No insincere, forced smarminess, what a friend called "Minnesota Friendly" while I was visiting him in Minneapolis. No eerie sense that you're being sized up and judged, like in the South. Just laid back live-and-let-live.
But probably what it is, most of all, is the weather. Where else but LA can you wear shorts and a t-shirt at 4:00 in the morning in January? Where else but LA or San Jose (or, well, Hawaii) can you live comfortably in a house that has neither central heating nor air conditioning? In the South, I've found, the rain likes to leap out from behind doors, dump buckets on you, kick you in the balls, and then run away. Lightning storms are the rule, not the exception; over the course of a day you can expect to see it go from partly-cloudy to thundering rainstorm to tornado-watch and back, all without the temperature dropping below 90. But in California, if it's going to rain, you know it: it comes over the horizon, squaring its shoulders, rubs its hands together, and says, "Hey! I'm gonna rain now!" The people yell back, "Okay!" And then the rain goes about its business, gets everything nice and soaked for two or three days, wrings itself out, and leaves. "See you in November!" it calls back over its shoulder.
I know it pisses people off no end to hear Californians talk about "dry heat", but honestly I have to say that it's got to be one of the most fundamental issues behind regional personality differences in this country. The weather here is our friend. I can walk around outside in 114-degree heat on an August day in Ukiah, because the humidity is under 25%. But in Atlanta or Nashville, 85 degrees is unbearable, and 95 is agony. We came out of an air-conditioned Murfreesboro video store a couple of nights ago into what I thought was going to be the cool night air. But instead of feeling a crisp breeze prickling my skin, my glasses fogged up. I'm serious. A cloud had just done a drive-by raining at the intersection there about an hour before, and now the air was so laden with moisture and so hot that it was like stepping into a particularly aggressive sauna.
I don't mean to degrade an entire region for its weather; I really don't. But to have to scuttle painfully from doorway to car, and from car to doorway, hoping your anti-perspirant holds out for just one more minute until you can get to the shelter of the vents-- that's just no way to live. Skulking in fear of the very air, from air-conditioned haven to air-conditioned haven-- it's enough to make one wonder, as one of the guys living there even said, how anybody ever survived there before air conditioning existed. I wonder what life there was like when that technology was brand-new and just being adopted?
I have to say, though, that I can see what kinds of personalities can come from these different kinds of climates. In California, the weather isn't your enemy. It goes about its business, you go about yours-- and so the people behave similarly. But in the South, and indeed in the Midwest and some parts of the East Coast, or anywhere where the humidity is that oppressive-- well, growing up where air conditioning is an inextricable part of life, and where rain can come kung-fu kicking at you from any direction at any time, I can easily see how one might grow up spoiled, dependent upon technology, unwilling to bear hardships in the natural world if there's any choice in the matter. Those people who are able to hike or jog or even play golf in such an environment I admire greatly, and in particular those who are able to cultivate an appreciation for the natural world against a backdrop where that world so vividly represents an adversary. But if you're looking for a reason why religion seems to have taken such hold in the South, I say that the weather's got to have a lot to do with it. In no other region is it so apparent that we're at the mercy of higher powers, and that God-- with his air-conditioned churches-- is on our side.
I don't mean to sound as though I hate these other regions. I don't. Indeed, if it weren't for the humidity (and possibly the church density), I'd find Nashville to be a charming and livable place. But ... well, you know, getting off the plane in San Jose, standing next to the shuttle bus to long-term parking with the sun beating down on me and yet my hands remaining dry and not a drop of sweat on me-- when I ask my brain what the possibility would be of my moving away, its immediate response is, What, are you nuts?
|
| Sunday, June 30, 2002 |
20:38 - Back to the routine...
|
(top) |
I'm back from a nice long weekend visiting friends in the Nashville area. I enjoyed it a great deal-- playing disc golf, watching movies, meeting all kinds of new people who all seemed to know who I was-- quite an unusual experience, but not one I'm going to complain about.
Well, except for one thing: This trip did nothing to quell my hatred and loathing for cell phones. And that's all I'm gonna say about that.
Overall a trip to remember. And now back to the bit mines...
|
| Thursday, June 27, 2002 |
08:25 - Justice is served
|
(top) |
What do I think of MCI/WorldCom folding? Good riddance, I say. They put those horrible long-distance phone ads on my TV, and they used Anderson to do their books-- the preferred method of late-90s conglomerates for Making $$$ Fast. Serves 'em right.
I refuse to give any of my money to any of these leeches who put ads with Carrot Top and Mr. T and Alf on TV. I swear, long-distance phone company ads are the worst thing about TV in this day and age, far worse than sex or violence or even the current season of Dexter's Lab. My phone exists for me to order pizza once a week, and I have absolutely no interest in using it for any purpose beyond that. I call long-distance maybe once a month. I can eat the bloody three bucks or whatever it is. If they want me to change that, they'd better get those damned ads off my TV.
No sympathy at all. Here's hoping AT&T or whoever does 1-800-COLLECT is next.
|
|
08:13 - Legacy of the 50s
|
(top) |
The answering machine of the atheist plaintiff in the Pledge of Allegiance case has been overflowing with "personal and scary" messages ever since the verdict was handed down; he's had to move his daughter, whom he was originally concerned with being "injured" by having to say under God, to a "safe place".
Now, even though I'm about as non-religious as they come, and a fierce proponent of the separation of church and state, I agree that this verdict was ridiculous and should be overturned. We made our bed in 1954, and now we have to lie in it.
But, you know, I don't think it speaks very well of religious people's supposed ethical superiority for them to be leaving death threats on someone's answering machine.
He's not Salman Rushdie, you know.
|
|
08:10 - Itty Bitty Nitty-Gritty Committee
|
(top) |
(Posting wirelessly from the airport, I am.)
With the G8 conference going on near Calgary, there's a group of anti-globalization protesters near there called the "Revolutionary Knitting Committee". They're sitting on the steps of the government buildings and knitting scarves and sweaters; their message is that "not all your clothes have to come from massive corporations".
Do these people have anything useful to contribute?
Knit me a pair of jeans for less than $20 and we'll talk. Then do it for each of my quarter billion friends, and see if you can still do it as a gathering of kindly little grannies with knitting needles, instead of becoming (gasp) a giant corporation.
You pathetic twits.
|
| Wednesday, June 26, 2002 |
00:14 - I'm outta here...
|
(top) |
Unless anything earth-shattering happens in the morning, this is probably the last post I'll be making until Sunday night; I'll be out on vacation until then. Here's hoping the world hangs together...
|
| Tuesday, June 25, 2002 |
00:37 - Great. They let the Visionary Intel PC designers have a go at the WTC.
http://isntapundit.com/
|
(top) |
I don't know what the story is with these proposed WTC designs that Isntapundit (note spelling carefully) quite rightly stones to death here, but the WTC2002 design is looking better and better by comparison.
If this is what the architectural art world is like today, I'm tempted to imagine what we'd have been seeing if 9/11 had occurred in, say, 1959.
One shudders, then vomits, then shudders again.
|
|
00:24 - Oh. Right.
|
(top) |
Pursuant to the scanner tale... Chris and I were on the way to a movie. I was telling him about SilverFast, which I described as having "more features than I could shake a fucking stick at."
As I continued talking about it, Chris waited for a breath-pause to ask, "By the way-- can I borrow your fucking-stick?"
"I'm not done shaking it yet," I said.
We'd parked at the theater before we both stopped laughing.
...What? So we're easily amused.
|
|
11:35 - And then there's the Tablet PC...
http://www.macnet2.com/more.php?id=26_0_1_0_M
|
(top) |
Journalists are starting to get their hands on Microsoft's tablet PC-- you know, the one they announced last year in the same week that Sony discontinued theirs due to nonexistent sales.
Handwriting recognition is supposed to be a big thing in the Tablet PC-- "best in the business", say the PR goons.
BEFORE YOU HIT those reviews, let me tell you that Microsoft forced us reviewers to sit through a day and a half of propaganda before it would hand over the test machines. The basic message of this indoctrination (which I understand the North Koreans could have accomplished in six hours or less) is simple: "Handwriting recognition doesn't matter."
Repeat that to yourself for a couple of days, and you'll be right where Microsoft wants you: Ready to accept a Tablet PC with way-less-than-perfect handwriting recognition but a vastly improved system for handling electronic ink on electronic paper. If this is enough for you--and it will be for many users--Tablet PC will make you happy.
Handwriting recognition doesn't matter. Handwriting recognition doesn't matter. Handwriting recognition doesn't matter.
Hmm. I wonder if John Manzione is convinced yet?
THE COMPANY CLAIMS its handwriting recognition is the best in the industry, which it may well be. But, even in Microsoft's own demonstrations, the technology doesn't work very well. Among other things, it's hampered by the most awkward method of making corrections that I've ever seen. Try picking the word you intended from a long list of nonsense "words" that use the same letter combinations, and you have the general idea.
Microsoft's handwriting reco doesn't learn by doing, either, so it won't get any better at mastering your particular handwriting over time. As it is, you can change your handwriting for the recognition engine if you like--just don't expect it to change for you. And people (like me) who print are especially out of luck: The reco is intended for cursive script only.
But remember: "Handwriting recognition doesn't matter."
The Newton is remembered best for its Doonesbury parody-- in fact, in the future, that may well be what Doonesbury is best remembered for, too. It was the height of the comic and an unmitigated coup for the forces of ridicule. No matter how loudly anyone yelled that the Newton's handwriting recognition learned over time and took into account things like printing vs. script characters and eventually became extremely, even uncannily, accurate, it was much more fun in the tech press to gleefully point and laugh at how silly the mistranslations were when you first took the thing out of the box.
What a user-experience nightmare. Can you imagine trying to sell a product that worked worst when it was brand-new? In a world where the first five minutes are absolutely crucial in forming a rapport between a customer and the gadget, trying to promote a product that learned about you while you learned about it had to have been a terrible, thankless task. What a heartbreak to see it so reviled by people who, quite literally, never gave it a chance.
But at least it could handle printed letters, not just cursive. And if Microsoft's software doesn't learn over time, it's taking the easy way out-- but it'll probably sell more. Isn't that a great microcosm of the whole Microsoft-Apple schism, right there? One company "does it right", but there are complications with "doing it right" that make people shun it in the marketplace. The other company copies it, does a shoddy job, but focuses on features that sell well-- and it wins the pot.
Seeing this happen over and over again is what makes me both so bitter about Microsoft's success, and so determined not to see Apple's good deeds go unrewarded. There must be justice in this world, somewhere.
|
| Monday, June 24, 2002 |
02:05 - This conspiracy goes all the way to the top...
http://www.instapundit.com/archives/002001.php#002001
|
(top) |
Some of us aspire merely to be mentioned in passing by our friends in their blogs or LiveJournals. Some of us are tickled pink to be noticed by Steven den Beste or Glenn Reynolds. But...
LILEKS IN CONGRESS! A reader just emailed that Rep. Tom Tancredo was reading from Lileks' latest Screed on the House floor a few minutes ago.
And here I was worried about how carefully I'd have to watch my writing if I knew that more than a few people in my own social circle were reading it. Congress? Good Lord... I don't know what I'd be feeling if I were James right about now.
|
|
16:02 - Just going over some old chestnuts...
http://www.lileks.com/screed/olivegarden.html
|
(top) |
I was reading the Olive Garden Screed again-- just dancing blithely down the park-path of halcyonity that is online journalism since last fall-- and a thought occurred to me.
"And from the Olive Garden it does seem very distant. Indeed, the whole messy and diverse concept of Europe seems very distant. Around Birmingham, there is nothing but miles and miles of Alabama."
Apparently around Birmingham England, there is nothing but miles and miles of Belgium, Thailand and the Antarctic Ice Shelf.
Lileks' giggle-fit-inducing rejoinder notwithstanding, I had to wonder something: What does a British person think of the vastness of American territory? What must it be like, coming from a country where you can drive from one end to the other in a day, picking up an atlas of the Lower 48 States and trying to imagine what it's like to live in such a place?
The big cities are probably easy to imagine. Cities are epicenters of activity. Everything you need can be found in any city. A city in a country 3000 miles across isn't that different from London or Paris, not in terms of day-to-day living. It's when you start to get out into those big middle-of-nowhere regions on the map that it starts to get weird. Where do all those long, curving interstates lead to? What's out there in ... Montana? Utah? Kansas? What are people like there? Do they even speak the same language we do?
In fact, coming from England, where one can drive a hundred miles and find oneself surrounded by people whose accent is completely incomprehensible, no doubt it's terrifying to imagine what that difference can be, magnified a hundred times.
To a Brit, America must look the way Siberia or the Australian outback looks to us: a vast, unexplored wasteland, full of mountain ranges and rivers and forests and rampaging tribes of lawless natives, when you're lucky to find traces of humanity at all. It's the realm of loggers and trappers, mountain men and crazy religious isolationists. It's nowhere that a civilized person would go.
But that's just it: that's what's so extraordinary about America. You can travel 3,000 miles and find less difference in people's attitudes, language, and beliefs than you'd find in 100 miles of travel in England or Europe. You can go to the middle of Idaho or Nevada and find every evidence of the thorough penetration of infrastructure: well-maintained roads, post offices, tract homes, 7-11s, new cars, high-speed Internet. You're just as likely to find some blogging technologist in Butte, Montana as you are to find him in Silicon Valley. Rural America might seem eerily menacing to anyone who has seen Deliverance, but even the backwoods of Kentucky have clean restrooms in the gift shops of the Points of Historical Interest that dot the highways, and everybody speaks intelligible English and mows their lawns and washes their cars.
The uniformity of America is a phenomenon in and of itself-- it's not just a "default" condition, an inevitable result of people not caring enough about their regions' traditions to want to fragment into tribes and evolve into freaky mountain people. It's the result of the unique variables that led to America's formation in the first place-- this specific point in technological and political history-- coinciding with a vast territory being overrun by Europeans desperate for land (and willing to shove the existing native people into a ditch in order to get it), every one of those people bearing the same seeds of entrepreneurship that originally got this country moving. The fact that a burger tastes the same in Minnesota as it does in Arizona is not a failing on the part of America's people to all develop their own ideas about what's important; it's the natural result of a people's common goal realized at the personal level, the desire to succeed and to achieve. We're a people determined to maximize what each of us individually can do, and we happen to have an almost incomprehensibly big agar dish on which we can do it. With such a food-rich environment, small wonder we've become as productive and as greedy and as gluttonous as insatiable for more achievement as we have.
So when a Wal-Mart or an Olive Garden springs up in Butte or Birmingham, where some might see a sitcom parody of authentic culture or mercantile, I see another unprecedented phenomenon-- one of those things that seems weird and scary to anyone who didn't grow up in the middle of it, but which to us is the most natural thing in the world. It's not inherently evil; it's just different from everything that's come before.
|
|
15:23 - What, you thought they were going to stop with .NET?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25843.html
|
(top) |
I'm not wild about the attitude and tone of this Register article (I'm getting vibes of unpleasantness from lots of their writers lately), but the gist of this article deserves attention.
According to Levy, Palladium is a hardware and software combination that will supposedly seal information from attackers, block viruses and worms, eliminate spam, and allow users to control their personal information even after it leaves their computer. It will also implement Digital Rights Management (DRM) for movies and music to allow users to exercise 'fair use' rights of such products. Palladium will essentially create a proprietary computing environment where Microsoft is the trusted gatekeeper, guard, watchstander, and ruler of all it surveys, thus turning the majority of computing users into unwilling corporate serfs and subjects of the Redmond Regime.
Yeah, and just wait'll Palladium is part of everybody's Windows machine-- and then gets hacked. Because it will. You know it will. Microsoft can't make a piece of rock-solid security software all of a sudden now, when for twenty years they've been unable to do that no matter how hard they've tried. Do you want to be in the vicinity when someone gains access to the desktops and hardware of every single Windows machine on Earth?
What's really frightening is the speed with which Microsoft's ventures in this direction are gaining in audacity and scope. Monopoly convictions or no, they're planting one foot firmly in front of the other and stomping off toward the goal of having Passport membership and Windows usership codified into U.S. law, thereby making Windows the only legal OS to run.
Couple that with the laws as they've been passed lately and the more recent Hollings-esque propositions, and you've got the makings of a world where software makers are liable for damages caused by their software-- a world in which open-source development would be impossible. With customers forbidden from revealing security flaws in software and software makers forced to protect themselves with huge legal defense bodies, soon the only people who can develop software will be the huge corporations. Individual people will be denied the right to publish software they've written themselves, and the egalitarian revolution of software will plummet to earth just as it's beginning to take flight. Meanwhile, who benefits? Why, Microsoft, naturally.
So it's now obvious where Windows will be in five years, and where Bill hopes to take it. Who's willing to stand up and shout in favor of this future? Anybody?
|
|
14:53 - What it all comes down to is...
http://armedndangerous.blogspot.com/2002_06_23_armedndangerous_archive.html#78108401
|
(top) |
Eric Raymond has the third part of his piercing look at Islam posted.
We will not be prepared to win the war against Islamic terror until we understand the following things:
- Islam is a religion of war and conversion by the sword, not peace.
- The primary threat of terrorism comes from Arabs and middle-easterners between the ages of fifteen and forty, and we must summon the will to profile accordingly.
- We are dealing with religious fanaticism rather than rational grievances against America or the West.
- Our enemies cannot be reasoned with or appeased anywhere short of surrender and submission to shari'a law.
- Apologists for mainstream Islam are systematically lying to us about Islamic doctrine in order to shield terrorists who they know are acting in strict accordance with that doctrine.
The hardest challenge for Americans is to grasp is the fact that the evil of the 9/11 hijackings, the destruction of the World Trade Center, and the threat of al-Qaeda weapons of mass destruction set off in American cities is not simply the evil of al-Qaeda. It is in fact the Koranically-correct expression of the tendency of Islam (Sunni fundamentalism) which is has been pre-eminent through most of Islamic history and now encompasses over 90% of the worlds Muslims.
We need to face the fact that we are confronting not just a barbaric and evil group of men, but a barbaric and evil religion. To protect ourselves, we must either force the complete reform of Islam (purging it of jihadism and its tendency towards periodic fundamentalist outbreaks) or destroy its hold over its followers...
To win the war on terror, we must understand jihadism and clearly distinguish it from ethical self-defense. We must be prepared not merely to counter fanaticism not merely by killing the fanatical in self-defense, but also by discrediting the doctrines and habits of thought that make fanatics in the first place -- whether they occur in the other guy's religion or our own. Islam has declared itself the immediate adversary of modernity -- but more than one world religion will have to go under the knife before our children can sleep in peace.
Pause a bit. Let this all sink in.
Ready? Good. Let's move on.
What Raymond is saying, then-- and what more and more people in the blogosphere, like Mike Hendrix, are coming to terms with-- is that our terrible choice is becoming clearer with each passing day. We must choose one of exactly two options:
- Surrender utterly to the will of fundamentalist Islam, or
- Destroy religion.
That's right... that's what it comes down to. The sad, tragic fact is that no matter how we try to rationalize the things that are happening in the world, we're on the brink of something unspeakably huge. We're engaged not in a war of economics or oil or land or oppression. We're engaged in perhaps the most significant war in all human history, a war of ideals-- on the one side, science and reason and secular humanism (which for lack of a better catch-all concept I'll call "science")... and on the other side, religion and blind faith and fanaticism and superstition (which for lack of a better catch-all concept I'll call "religion").
We've been fighting this war on the popular level for hundreds of years now, ever since the Renaissance and the rise of the middle class in Europe. Before that time, there was no science-- that was the realm of alchemists and ancient Greeks, and only those results of it that were irrefutable became codified by the religious incumbents, and what was left over was dismissed and shunned. Why not, after all? It's not like it really offered any answers that were better than what the priests had.
But times are different now. Scientific thought is respected, not distrusted-- it has taken us to the moon and fired nuclear power plants. It has leveled Japanese cities and given us flying buses that carry thousands of people around the world every day. None of these very tangible advances owe the slightest thing to the old religious thinkers, whose only purpose now seems to be to tell us which of those advancements we're allowed to use and which we aren't. They can't create anything of their own except rules.
We've been fighting minor skirmishes in this conflict now throughout the history of our country, getting more and more frequent with each new advancement. Roe vs. Wade. Brown vs. Board of Education. Free-speech issues polarize those who want the right to speak against those who want to suppress it, and in most cases these tiny debating figures cast vast shadows on the back walls of the hall: the shadows of these two forces that we're now beginning to see for what they are. The two biggest ideas humans have ever had.
These two ideas have never lived pleasantly together. But now their disagreements have reached a fever pitch; religion has fired the first shot of the full-scale war in the form of the jetliners in New York, and science must now decide whether to fight back or whether to back down and give up all of its hard-earned gains.
I don't think it's going to do so. As anathema as it is for a true follower of Islam to refuse the call to jihad as stated in the Koran, it is just as much so for science to retreat from what it knows to be true. And so the two sides are going to dig in and make their stand, preparing for a pitched battle that will begin just as soon as the participants become willing to accept the magnitude of this war and the choices we are going to have to make.
Those of us who see where this is all going tend to be agnostics and students of science (the two concepts are very much intertwined-- science is founded on logic and the ability to observe facts, and so by definition a scientist cannot "know" that there is or is not a God). We recognize the importance of religion in helping people to live their daily lives, to see beauty in an otherwise dreary and stark world, to hope for something to reward them for a life of hardships and struggle. It's a powerful human tendency, and we're not immune to its allure. Some of the best scientists I've known have been devoutly religious; to them, math and physics reveal part of God's mind and thereby a beauty unfathomable by ordinary humans. You know what? We believe that too; only we have different names that we give God. It's all to do with how we envision our roles in the Universe and how we go about unlocking the mysteries around us. God, to most of us, is that best part of each of us-- that piece of ourselves that makes us want to be good human beings and bring hope and light to our world. Nathan Lane's Catholic priest character in Jeffrey described it as a bunch of people at a picnic, batting a balloon around. Every time the balloon is just about to touch the ground... someone always reaches out to tap it back up. That balloon-- that's God.
But there's a big difference between that balloon and religious fanaticism. And that's what we have now come to realize is the enemy like none we have ever faced before. Organized religion, the drive to band together in huge groups and follow to the letter a document that advocates fiery and bloody death to nonbelievers-- that's the opposite of God; it's the absolute antithesis of what religion at its best is supposed to be about. And ever since September 11, we have known exactly what happens when religious fanaticism gains enough power on a global scale to take literally the prophetic words that call believers to arms. I've been writing since that day about how 9/11 is not a crime perpetrated merely by Muslim extremists, but by religion in general-- fundamentalist fanaticism of any stripe that decides that the threat posed by freedom and science and reason makes those things a worthy target for horrific fiery jihad. It happened to be the Muslims in this phase of history. In another, it could have been the Christians or the Jews or the Buddhists. When religion ceases to be one's personal relationship with God and becomes a cause worth dying for, then the true face of evil takes shape.
That is what attacked us in September. That is what is readying more attacks on us for the near future. And that is what we must realize is the enemy that we've been building ourselves up to fight for centuries. Galileo, Newton, Martin Luther, Copernicus, Franklin, Jefferson, Adam Smith, Lincoln, Watson and Crick, Einstein-- It's all been for this coming confrontation; the one that will define the future of humanity.
According to Mike,
But what if the unthinkable might possibly be true? What if the problem is not restricted access to the fruits of life in a relatively free and secular society, but a deeply-rooted and (in the case of Muslim fundamentalists) religion-mandated opposition to a free and secular society itself? A hatred and mistrust of the things we assume everybody naturally desires? At that point, the sanctified liberal idea of the sameness and unity of all human beings, no matter their culture or philosophy, falls apart. And, in falling apart, the liberal ideal leaves us with a bigger and more insuperable moral hole to fill in: how do you defend yourself against that which you cannot even comprehend? How does a society, any society, defend itself against an enemy it cannot or will not recognize? When even the validity of the concept of having an "enemy" in the first place is questioned, what do you do when the guns start firing and the bombs start going off in your neighborhood?
That's when we start having to choose sides for good. Those who refuse to come down on one side or the other aren't going to benefit from either side's victory. But in the meantime, they're the ones who are keeping us from seeing the real scale of this battle-- a scale that the other side already sees all too clearly. They're already operating on that scale. They're already attuned to images like giant buildings falling down in columns of fire. But we weren't, and we still aren't. That's why disbelief that 9/11 could have happened still hangs over us, and now takes the form of wishing to think of it as a fluke, a freakish aberration in history that nobody-- not even the enemy-- could countenance doing again.
That's just it, though. They can do it again, and they will. It will likely take another attack on the order of 9/11 or bigger to make us see that.
Fortunately, we on the side of science/reason/freedom have an advantage: the things that we believe in work. Science is on our side, and rewards us in ways that Allah does not reward his followers. We're the ones creating the weapons; the other side merely benefits from our ability to provide them. So in the long term, if we decide to escalate this war to the level that the fanatics believe they've already taken it, we will win. But only if we do acknowledge that those are the stakes.
Go to www.islam.org, where you will find a poll that shows you that the vast majority of the site's users believe that the "war on terror" is really, and has always been, a War on Muslims (or a War on Islam). They've been of this mind since the Eleventh. No matter how loudly we tried to proclaim that what we were fighting was terrorism, the enemy used every opportunity to give us to know that they considered Islam to be the victim of our retaliation. That troubled us deeply at the time. It still feels viscerally wrong. But the fact is that Muslims have felt themselves to be under attack ever since 9/11 because they had every reason to expect that they would be-- in terms of jihad, it was absolutely sensible for the West to declare war not on terrorism but on Islam itself. That makes jihad all the more righteous.
And so in turning to face the realities of this upcoming war and stare it in the eyes, we are going to have to ready not only our technology and our science in our defense, but we will have to use the very strengths of freedom and secularism to bolster them on the side where we are specifically being attacked. We have words. We have the ability to use words in a way that they're not allowed to, in a way that they can't fathom. We can barrage the world with ideas. We can blog to the high heavens. We can use flowery and poetic language like Suleiman Abu Gheith and friends. We can parody and satire and Photoshop our way into the minds of anybody with eyes and ears. We can fight on their terms, using the same ideological weapons that they use-- plus a little of our own poison of reason and logic-- to shatter any house of cards that they build up in front of themselves.
They want to fight a war of symbols? They think destroying the World Trade Center will make the United States incapable of trading with the world? Ha-- we'll show them what destroying a symbol is all about.
We've endured the WTC's destruction with anger and sorrow, but without a mosquito's wing's worth of damage to our strength as a nation or our financial power or our core values of freedom and reason. Can Islam withstand the destruction of the Ka'aba with the same resolve and stolid strength?
No, we probably won't actually do this. But can Islam risk it? Is that gamble worth this price-- is the destruction of another American symbol that important? And what symbol do they think will be more important to us than the World Trade Center and its 2833 civilian victims?
Our weapons are poised, and all we need is an excuse. Maybe posing a non-ignorable threat on their own terms, as in the picture at the right, will force a stalemate-- and a stalemate is the best we can hope for at this stage. But once we have the go-ahead to fire, we'll be committing to the greatest war of ideas this world has ever witnessed. It truly will be Armageddon.
UPDATE: Steven den Beste wrote about these issues, just five days after the attacks; he puts it in the terms that Theocracy is just the latest in a string of forms of authoritarianism which we have fought and will conquer: Slavery, Monarchy, Fascism, Communism. I wonder, though, whether Theocracy is possibly the oldest of all these (except possibly Slavery)-- and the most potentially upsetting to humanity as a whole when we engage it in war?
Also, den Beste's essay doesn't go to the extreme of our having to attack Islam, by name, on its own terms. That's something we're only just now seeming to want to discuss.
|
| Sunday, June 23, 2002 |
16:59 - And here we ban firecrackers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_2059000/2059837.stm
|
(top) |
Honestly, this defies commentary.
A wedding feast in north-east Pakistan turned to carnage after a mortar shell launched in celebration misfired, killing 21 people, including the bridegroom.
More than 40 guests were wounded in the accident, which happened in the village of Korez, 250 kilometres (180 miles) south-west of the border city of Peshawar.
Local officials said guests had been "joyously" firing their weapons in the air in a traditional act of celebration, when one of the groom's relatives loaded the mortar "upside-down".
What could I possibly say that could add to this?
|
| Friday, June 21, 2002 |
16:26 - Site stats
http://www.coldfury.com/Entries/00000108.html
|
(top) |
Mike says:
As I said to Steven, it really ain't all about who gets the most hits, and I try not to gauge what I do by how many folks read it, but it is definitely nice to be appreciated, and any blogger who claims not to regularly check his site stats is a liar.
I dunno, I have yet to check mine...
Honestly, I have no interest in knowing how many people are reading this site-- I'm operating on the assumption that only two or three people are, and beyond that the prospects get kinda creepy. I suspect that I would change my writing habits if I knew more people were reading me, and I don't want to run that risk.
So I'm content in gauging this blog's popularity by second-hand factors such as how much e-mail I get (next to none, usually) and whether I happen to stumble across somebody who's got me in their blogroll. Beyond that I say, "Who's counting?"
|
|
14:24 - There is a difference
|
(top) |
With this weekend's Lileks Screed in mind, and after meandering through a few discussions in blogland (the latest of which express fresh outrage over the death of Gal, the sweet-faced little girl at the bottom of today's Bleat), I find that the biggest ideological confrontation going on these days seems to be between the outrage of people who want to see the Palestinians defeated (and then rewarded with a state, as with Japan), and the caution of people who see such talk as being tantamount to Naziism.
I tell you, though, I'm getting awfully sick of that accusation. Especially coming from people whose forebears didn't exactly take such caution to heart themselves.
There is a fundamental difference between American public anger against Islamic fundamentalism, and Nazi anti-Semitism. I would have thought that was obvious, but apparently it's not. Evidently the very fact that our enemies seem to speak a common language and worship the same God is enough to make any attack upon them, even a self-defensive one, "racist" and therefore the work of evil monsters.
Take another look, if you will, at Michael Trossman's post from a few days ago-- or read it now if you missed it the first time. Consider how it was that Hitler came to power. Consider the national mood that codified anti-Semitism into law. And imagine that happening in America today with Muslims.
Doesn't really work, does it?
No, because the situations are entirely different.
Hitler wanted to kill the Jews because-- well, because of a personal grudge, evidently. Because it would help him leverage the will of the people to vault himself into power-- find a cheap and easy scapegoat, something that the country can feel that it's "cleansing" itself of by scouring it from within themselves, after which they can consider themselves "pure". Hitler's method was to dig up old racial libels, make propagandistic films, play on Germany's humiliation in the aftermath of WWI, and create a mythological "fatherland" that didn't really exist yet-- but that was only because of this one straw-man obstacle, this enemy-in-our-midst, which-- if they're rounded up and wiped out-- means that the German people would become the rightful inheritors of the Earth.
An ingenious plan, and one that came damned close to working, too.
But for anybody to claim that that's the motivation of the Americans who want to see an end brought to militant Islam-- well, that takes a person with an agenda, an anti-American axe to grind. Because even the most perfunctory glimpse can reveal that it isn't the case.
If America were to go to war against Islam-- a far-fetched concept in itself, because no matter how much proof were offered to the world community of Islam's harmful nature with respect to the modern planet, nobody would endorse us in it-- we would be doing it with deep regret, searching desperately for an alternative right up to the very last minute. We would destroy only the most strategic targets, taking only the bare minimum of lives necessary to remove the threat posed by those who consider 9/11 only to be the first stroke in a grand holy war. We would stop attacking the instant it became clear that the threat had been neutralized in a way that would last. (If that ends up meaning that all of Islam has to be undermined, well, we would deeply regret that too-- but it isn't our fault that Islam was founded with the principles that it was. It predates us. And so we won't stop short of that goal if that's what it takes.)
Hitler took on the Jews for no good reason-- where were the Jewish suicide bombers in Munich and Dresden? Where were the angry Jewish mobs calling for German blood? Where were the militant Jewish factions preaching a bloody end to the European races? Nowhere. Hitler simply needed a scapegoat for political gain, and the Jews were a convenient target. Hitler hated the Jews for ideological and political reasons, not for living historical ones. He hated the Jews for what they were, not for anything they did.
And that's what made his racism evil.
But we are going to war out of self-defense. We've been attacked, and we know that more attacks are coming-- they've only been prevented so far by intense efforts both at home and abroad. It's a sad fact that our enemy is a race, or more accurately (and more troublesome), a religion-- how do we target that enemy without being "racist"? We're bound to get these accusations, but that's the magnitude of the dichotomy that's been thrust upon us. It's really that big a decision to have to make.
We're on the brink of a new sea change in thought regarding race, religion, fascism, democracy, and the like, on the same scale as the one that Hitler brought to the world-- if World War II marked the beginning of the age of the sensibilities we've all known (tolerance, political correctness, anti-discrimination, the "Noble Redman", and the big enemy being Communism), 9/11 has marked the beginning of a new age that's just as important to recognize. A history book written in the year 3000 will use the same bold-face heading to describe World War II and whatever 9/11 has now touched off.
And now, while al Qaeda regroups in countries surrounding Afghanistan and plots the Next Big Move, the Palestinians prove that giving them their own state is not only no longer deserved, but a grave strategic error both in military and cultural terms-- and we have to put up with people who look at five-year-old Palestinian girls deliberately put into the line of Israeli fire and accidentally killed by ricocheting debris (and mourned by Israelis), and five-year-old Israeli girls shot through the head point-blank by Palestinian terrorists invading a home (and cheered by Palestinians)-- and claim that they're morally equivalent.
These are the same people who see the first tentative steps taken by America towards reining in Islam, and shout "Nazi!" at the top of their lungs. They're the people who tell pollsters that they'd be willing to dodge the draft, because, y'know, that means we'd be fighting for The Man and stuff, y'know? They're the people who think that understanding the answer to "Why do they hate us?" means we can pay someone some money, tweak a few buttons or levers in our global financial influence, and al Qaeda would become satisfied and go away. They're the people who say that "violence is not the answer" and talk of a "cycle of violence", as though if the Palestinians stopped blowing up bus stops and hotels, the IDF would keep bulldozing private homes. They're the people who claim that the Palestinian actions are the result of "desperation", when it's affluent and intelligent college students working on their master's theses who do the bombing these days, as happened in one of the recent attacks-- not the poor and desperate, as one might expect.
Some people just don't want to see the US get involved in another war-- even though it's painfully clear that we're already in one, whether we like it or not. We didn't start this one, no matter what "globalization" arguments are brought to bear-- but we will finish it. And we'll do so regardless of whether someone tries to invoke Godwin's Law on America's ass. It doesn't work that way. Thanks for playing.
|
| Thursday, June 20, 2002 |
23:39 - Mmmyep. Good Screed.
http://www.lileks.com/screed/college.html
|
(top) |
Lileks is at it again-- and after reading this, I don't know if I've ever felt so distant from the world of college. I'm less than three years out, and I just spent Memorial Day weekend with Mole chums, reminiscing about AMa95 and Ditch Day... but after reading the college-student poll results that he seethes at here, in which the overwhelming majority of the nations Beautiful Young Adults reveal themselves to feel that America is evil and not worth defending against fanatical religious terrorists who, after all, live in cultural purity and don't have McDonald's-- well, I feel like I've suddenly and unexpectedly landed in a whole new tax bracket or something.
I wonder where these poll questions were asked. I somehow have to imagine that, just as with high school, my college experience was somewhat tilted from the norm-- at Caltech, there's no protesting, no hippies (well, there are CS geeks, but while they look similar, they're not), almost no sex, and certainly not much politics. All we cared about was math and physucks. But these polled students seem to be under the impression that just because there's a war on, it automatically means that it's Vietnam all over again-- which means that they, as college students, are required to be against it. Hey, it's tradition, right? And all wars are the same! ...Right?
Hmm. At least there seems to be a healthy majority sympathizing with Israel rather than with the Palestinians. But that's about the only bright spot to be seen.
Read the Screed. You Need a Thneed.
Oh, and by the way-- at the exact same moment that I read "BUT if I’d given in to the temptation to defend the machines, today would be a good example", Homer on TV said "I don't give in to temptation that easily!"
|
|
21:06 - What to do, what to do...
http://armedndangerous.blogspot.com/2002_06_16_armedndangerous_archive.html#77964879
|
(top) |
Okay, so Eric S. Raymond's blog (pointed to via Cold Fury) is turning out to be pretty linkworthy-- well, as long as he's not talking about Linux-- "A reader complains that Linux is difficult to install. Answer: Get thee to the Linux user group near you, who will be more than happy to help you get liberated". This week he's got a series on Islam and its history that is both sobering and enlightening-- I hadn't realized, for instance, that purdah is not in fact required by the Koran.
But, unfortunately, it doesn't much dispel the suspicions that have been gnawing at me over the past several months, regarding the idea that Islam is a religion that is uniquely, inherently, by its very nature, harmful to the rest of the world-- and what is therefore in store for it in the years to come:
This drama keeps getting re-enacted because, in general, these charismatic fundamentalist looney-toons are correct in their criticism of `soft' Islam. The Koran, the actions and statements of the prophet Mohammed, and the witness of the lives of his immediate followers are pretty clear on what the religious duties of a Muslim are. Long before the 9/11 attacks, I read large portions of the Koran (in translation) and more than one history of Islam, because I collect religions. I learned about the Five Pillars and the hadith (the traditional sayings of Mohammed) and the ulama. The picture is not a pretty or reassuring one.
Moderate Muslims trying to argue against the latest version of Islamic fundamentalism are in a difficult situation. All the fundamentalists have to do to support their position is to point at the Koran, which is much more authoritative in an Islamic context than the Bible is in most Christian ones. Moderates are reduced to arguing that the Koran doesn't really mean what it says, or arguing from hadith that qualify or contradict the Koranic text. Since the Koran trumps the hadith, this is generally a losing position.
The grim truth is that Osama bin Laden's fanatic interpretation of Islam is Koranically correct. The God of the Koran and Mohammed truly does demand that idolatry be purged with fire and sword, and that infidels must be forced either to convert to Islam or (as a limited exception for Christians and Jews, the "Peoples of the Book") live as second-class citizens subject to special taxes and legal restrictions. The Koran really does endorse suicidal martyrdom and the indiscriminate killing of infidels for the faith.
So the inevitable question, the one that people have been dancing around but not really asking for a while now, is this:
Does there come a time when a religion must be declared "evil" and incorrigible, and must be therefore stricken from the planet?
Or, more bluntly:
Should we in fact be considering wiping out Islam?
I hope not. And I wish it weren't true that Islam, unlike pretty much any other religion that's big enough to matter, is so dead-set upon these fantasy-novel concepts of Arthurian warriors and Caliphs and carrying sword and fire into the land of the infidels for the glory of Allah. But as Jamie Glazov and others continue to illustrate, Islam has at its core the codified exhortation to subjugate and convert the infidels, and that cannot be changed without involving changes to Shari'a Law and to the Koran itself-- Bida, a new (and therefore unholy) idea. Modern Islam has demonstrated both the will and the ability to attack the secular, Western world-- Quixotic it might be, but that's all part of the romance. And so there's no hope that they will simply get tired of it and give up. If anything, the more desperate their cause appears, the more fiercely they'll fight, and the more extreme techniques they'll employ, because they have less to lose.
How does one wipe out a religion, anyway? It's like banning an idea-- something that we've been very vehement (with the shoe on the other foot) in claiming to be impossible to eradicate or suppress completely. You can't wipe out democracy by burning the Constitution, and you can't erase Christianity by burning Bibles. The ideas live on regardless of whether they're endorsed by the local government, or whether they're declared subversive. And in any case, we've been vociferous in the blogosphere about the nature of randomly developed ideas as being the ingredients in the rich stew of an open culture-- if we truly feel confident in our thought system, we not only do not declare any idea to be blasphemous, we welcome it into the common discourse to be discussed and accepted or rejected, as appropriate, on the popular level. So thinking about attacking the Muslim religion does rather go against the very grain of our creed, as it were.
But as luck would have it, Islam isn't just a set of ideas: it's a set of ideas with actual physical components, relics that exist in the modern world which are said to play a part in the mythology of the past, present, and future. To wit, the Ka'aba-- the black meteoric stone in the square building in the middle of the square in Mecca. The object of the hajj, the pilgrimage that constitutes one of the Five Pillars of Islam, central to the contemporary practice of the faith as well as its storied founding and its prophesied future. For a bellicose and arrogant religion bent on taking on the entire world, it's founded on a remarkably exposed and vulnerable piece of physical reliquary.
So: What would actually happen if we were to put a cruise missile into the Ka'aba?
Would that finally put paid to the idea that everything in the Koran is an unequivocable script for the future of the world-- if the Ka'aba is destroyed, how can it be moved to Jerusalem in the End Times? How can such a thing happen without being mentioned in the predictions in the text? Would that be enough to dissolve Islam's fanatical core, and the Koranically correct notions that keep attracting Muslims back to strict fundamentalism in a way that no other religion does?
And is there any action we can take short of that, that can result in the modern world remaining safe from attack from that quarter in the future? After all, going to that length would be an act of cultural and historical barbarism worse than the Taliban's destruction of the cliffside Buddhas, which they undertook because... uh, because they were threatened by the influence of a competing religion.
One of our big tenets is "freedom of religion"-- we don't tell you what to believe, as long as you don't tell us what to believe. It's that second bit that's important. Self-determination, and the mind-your-own-business attitude that is fostered in the United States, is not an absolute concept; it is tempered by the clause of "As long as such freedom does not threaten our own survival". There haven't been many-- or indeed any-- immediate and direct threats on our country's ideals in our history, on our own ground, until now. And we're still unwilling to believe the magnitude of the decisions we're going to have to make in defense of what we believe to be right and just.
The point where we must all make that decision is coming, and soon.
Wait, I've got an idea. How about if we send into Mecca a cruise missile that's not armed-- instead of blowing up its target, it simply explodes on contact in a shower of Arabic confetti that reads, "The next one won't be corked"? Because just maybe, the knowledge of such chilling vulnerability is all that it would take...
Response from Mike at Cold Fury. Looks like this idea is becoming more than just a guilt-ridden murmur.
|
|
20:27 - Wheee!
|
(top) |
The second printing of FreeBSD Unleashed just came through-- I got a copy in the mail today. It includes (at a brief glance) all the changes that I'd flagged, including the improved disk geometry diagram in Chapter 19.
The fact that it's gone to a second printing is very encouraging. If I'd decided to be in a bad mood tonight, I think this would have put a monkey wrench into those plans.
|
|
18:52 - “Software sucks because users demand it to.”
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/mann0702.asp
|
(top) |
Here's a good, revealing article on software design from Charles C. Mann of Technology Review.
It's got some brusque remarks in it from Microsoft's former CTO (from the 80s era) and the usual kind of comparisons to space-travel technology and car design that you would expect in this kind of article. Most refreshingly, it points out the fact that software design is fundamentally different from other kinds of engineering-- "If a bridge survives a 500-kilogram weight and a 50,000-kilogram weight, Pfleeger notes, engineers can assume that it will bear all the values between. With software, she says, 'I can’t make that assumption—I can’t interpolate.'"
It also notes that software is inherently buggy because customers demand new features all the time. As I've mentioned before, devices like digital cameras and MP3 players are in that bleeding-edge phase that personal computers have exemplified in macrocosm for twenty years now: every six months, a company brings out a device that's twice as good as its previous one, just to keep pace with the competition and the demands of the available technology (which keeps changing just as fast). From a stereo-design or car-design or bridge-design standpoint, such thinking is insane.
How much longer can we expect to keep this up? Moore's Law can't keep on going forever, can it? Will there come a time when CPU cycles and RAM are so cheap that no amount of programmatic complexity can drive hardware upgrades? Obviously not for decades at least, or even centuries-- even when we have fully-functional holodecks and transporters, there will still be a demand for still more complex computing tasks. At least, that's the impression of technology that I get from Star Trek-- even over the course of a few fictional decades of a hypothetical future, such new developments as holographic doctors and food replicators are greeted with the same fervor that we emit today over the newest gadgets and peripherals. And because of the egalitarian nature of software creation, the limits on what software can do are still imposed by hardware rather than by human imagination-- as will continue to be the case for a long time, I suspect.
And we can't treat software as an exception to the rules of engineering, either; as time goes on, software will become more and more important a part of the engineering world-- and sooner or later, mechanical and civil and electrical engineering will be treated as the poor cousins of software engineering, the latter of which will be so ubiquitous that its rules will be the ones bent to accommodate the rest of the world's disciplines, not the other way around. Ready to start thinking about quality-control at Ford in terms of defects per kLOCs?
|
|
18:19 - From the "Leave it to Japan" department...
http://www.mci.panasonic.co.jp/aced/audio/products/2DIN/CQ-TX5500D.html
|
(top) |
In-dash MP3 player. With tube amps.
What more needs to be said?
|
|
14:10 - Let's hear it for the good guys
http://www.palit.com/2002_06_16_tkl_archive.asp
|
(top) |
Blogging from India, Shuman Palit has a list of the top twenty reasons to like/love/admire Israel. Go read it, and be sure to also read the responses from Solly Ezekiel and Michael Trossman.
It's good to see that there are more countries on "our side" than just ourselves. What gets me, though, is that there's this unspoken rule that "you don't help the Israelis"-- almost as though the very fact that they've succeeded using the same methods as America did, with a culture of personal expression and individual freedom and innovation, lumps them into a hated category of countries that nobody is willing to emulate because of their success.
Nobody wants to be like the US, because capitalism and democracy and secularity are seen deep down in other parts of the world as dirty and dehumanizing. Nobody wants to be like Israel, because they've got all the bad aspects of the US, plus they're Jews.
If we weren't concerned with what the rest of the world thinks, or whether it would constitute treason or something, I can imagine that a lot of people in this country would happily form a militia to go to Israel and fight on the side of the people that represents a "right" that no accusations of Naziism can assail: this "right" is one where the only possible casualties are the romanticism and idealism of what has been called the "Old World" for centuries now.
If we were to gather together the countries who seem to "get it"-- America, Israel, Britain, India, Japan, perhaps a few others-- and secede and form our own planet, I've got a guess as to which planet would survive longer.
|
|
09:20 - Wait a minute. What time is it?
|
(top) |
There wasn't much evening bloggage last night because I had what has to be the quickest and most intense fever ever; about eight hours of my life have been sort of snipped out of my consciousness.
I've had a mysterious sore throat for two days, and at about 7:00 last night, after I picked up my car and while Chris and I tried dumbfoundedly to fix a bizarre Sendmail problem, I started feeling really cold. And tired. To steal a line from James Herriot, I felt as though a group of strong men had been kicking me enthusiastically for several hours.
So I got home, I lay down for a while, then moved to the couch downstairs with my comforter, curling up in a desperate attempt to get warm while the TNN Star Trek marathon played. Then dinner was ready-- and as I sat up, suddenly I was unbearably hot. No food could I manage; the best I could do was to go upstairs, fling my window open, and drape myself out into the night air. We didn't seem to have any Tylenol or whatever you're supposed to take in these circumstances; we didn't even have a thermometer, so I have no idea what was going on.
Whenever I've been sick, which is seldom, I tend to always have a single dream which plays for hours and hours, never seeming to make any progress story-wise. Often it's a dream about a bunch of green wire-frame hexagons and squares and pentagons floating about in black space, like a CADKEY project. But not this time; this time I was in charge of removing the foul language from a whole bunch of TV shows. (Apparently these shows were filmed with all the foul language in, which then had to be edited out.) Except the shows weren't on video or anything; they were physical blobs or sticks or something, piled up in a huge sticky mound, and if I cut a piece of bad language from one show, unless I really knew what I was doing, it would appear in a different show. So it was like a game of Jenga or Kalto or something, and I played it all freakin' night.
So now it all seems to be over-- not even my sore throat remains. I'm still a bit dizzy, though... but I don't think I'll stay home. I've never yet missed a day of work due to being sick, and I'm not keen on starting now.
Wish me luck...
|
| Wednesday, June 19, 2002 |
12:07 - Windows Moment of Zen
|
(top) |
I haven't had occasion to mention one of these in a while-- coincidentally since I got the iMac for work and shelved my Windows2000 machine for use in testing Windows apps and playing AVIs with funky encoding that QuickTime doesn't support (not that WMP lets me copy still frames from them or anything).
All I want is to take a screen shot, paste it into Paint, save it into "My Pictures", and then go to the command line to FTP it to my other machine (because the FTP client built into Windows Explorer works not at all).
So I do that. I save it there. The path appears to be Desktop->My Documents->My Pictures. That's where it appears to be. That's where the files are if I double-click on the "My Documents" on my desktop.
But after painstakingly cd'ing through "Documents and Settings" and "briant" and "Desktop" and "My Documents", I find... that it's empty.
There's also a "My Documents" directly under the "BrianT" level, but-- yes, it's also empty.
Hmm, maybe it's in "All Users.WINDOWS" or "Default User.WINDOWS". Nope, not there either. "Administrator"? Nope.
It's only after much scrolling and prodding that we discover that the files, as well as a Word document that seems to be accessible by Word and nothing else, are in a "My Documents" folder directly under the C:\ root. Same with "My Music" and "My Download Files".
What the hell is this? Does every user share these top-level folders? Or does Windows actively copy all the files around the system, out of your user-specific folder and into this top-level thing every time you log in? Is this their helpful way of making the files accessible to you-- shuffling them into a completely backwards and counterintuitive location so you don't have to go down two extra levels in Windows Explorer to find them? Oh, thank you for your generous assistance.
This is Microsoft's idea of a multi-user operating system, is it? Good Lord.
|
| Tuesday, June 18, 2002 |
14:39 - Shee-frickin-hosaphat!
http://www.wtc2002.com/
|
(top) |
Is this the front-runner? It certainly seems to be well-developed, and if the poll is to be believed it has an over 80% approval rate. It seems to cover all the bases-- the 2833 trees, the bigger-than-before, the whole-world-exchange aspect... I have to give it some more thought, but I might be able to get behind this...
|
| Monday, June 17, 2002 |
20:59 - This slope ain't that slippery
|
(top) |
Marcus forwards me the folowing e-mail, which reinforces the fact that there's a long way to go between security profiling and Naziism:
To ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport screeners will not be allowed to profile people.
They will continue random searches of 80 year old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, Secret Service agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85 year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal Of Honor winners.
Let's pause a moment and take the following test: ==================================== In 1972, at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnaped and massacred by: (a) Olga Korbut (b) Sitting Bull (c) Arnold Schwartzenegger (d) Muslim males between the ages of 17 & 40
In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by: (a) Lost Norwegians (b) Elvis (c) A tour bus full of 80 year old women (d) Muslim males between the ages of 17 & 40
During the 1980's, a number of Americans were kidnaped in Lebanon by: (a) John Dillinger (b) The King of Sweden (c) The Boy Scouts (d) Muslim males between the ages of 17 & 40
In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by: (a) A pizza delivery boy (b) Pee Wee Herman (c) Geraldo Rivera (d) Muslim males between the ages of 17 & 40
In 1985, the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked, and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard by: (a) The Smurfs (b) Davy Jones (c) The Little Mermaid (d) Muslim males between the ages of 17 & 40
In 1985, TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver was murdered by: (a) Captain Kidd (b) Charles Lindbergh (c) Mother Teresa (d) Muslim males between the ages of 17 & 40
In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by: (a) Scooby Doo (b) The Tooth Fairy (c) Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid (d) Muslim males between the ages of 17 & 40
In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by: (a) Richard Simmons (b) Grandma Moses (c) Michael Jordan (d) Muslim males between the ages of 17 & 40
In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by: (a) Mr. Rogers (b) Hillary Clinton (c) The World Wrestling Federation (d) Muslim males between the ages of 17 & 40
On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked and destroyed, and thousands of people were killed by: (a) Wiley E. Coyote (b) The Supreme Court of Florida (c) Mr. Bean (d) Muslim males between the ages of 17 & 40
In 2002, the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against: (a) Enron (b) The Lutheran Church (c) The NFL (d) Muslim males between the ages of 17 & 40
In 2002, reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnaped and murdered by: (a) Bonnie and Clyde (b) Captain Kangaroo (c) Billy Graham (d) Muslim males between the ages of 17 & 40
Nope, no pattern here!!
|
|
19:35 - Where do you think you're going today?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/35/25739.html
|
(top) |
If you've got a name like "Woodcock", I hope you don't harbor aspirations of signing up with Microsoft's Passport service. You disgusting pervert.
That is, until the fateful day recently when trying to sign up for Passport. When I try I get a little message that says "Your lastname contains a word that has been reserved or is prohibited for .NET Passport registration. Please type in a different lastname". If only the registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages had said something similar 25 years ago...
Being temporarily unemployed, I spent a rather entertaining afternoon entering slight-moderate rude words into the sign on process. Alas, only my name and similar names were rejected. Harold Wanker, Fred Prostitute and Josiah Feltch (and Felch, I never know how to spell it, neither does /usr/dict/words) all seem to be perfectly acceptable names. So it would appear to be a mistake... (And you should hear what "Gates" means in our house).
One day later, I finally found an email address to write to to point out this oversight. Surely there is a quick fix. But no. I got an email from some polite lady pointing out what a disgusting and offensive little man my forebear was and does this satisfy my query?
I love how their marketing slogan these days is "Yes You Can".
|
|
16:24 - Jasper: Most Famous Dog in the Blogosphere
http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/02/0602/060402.html#061702
|
(top) |
Leave it to Lileks to corral together the wildly disparate topics of home life, Islamofascism, the Macintosh, Star Trek, and agnosticism under one three-letter heading: Dog.
But who civilizes the dog? Man. And it’s so very easy to do; it requires only connection and the will to do good. Which is why I’ve often said, half facetiously, that the relationship between man and dog is the same as man to God. Dogs don’t understand our books or physics or spacecraft or lawn mower engines or flat-screen monitors or 99.8% of our world. They do not know what it is that they do not know. They don’t even know how to pose the question, frame the argument, find their way into to realm of the human mind. The connection to the human being is sufficient. And that’s why I’m not an atheist, as much as every single rational fiber of my being tells me I should be: don’t know what I don’t know. (And I know that for a fact.) I find no more empirical proof of God than my dog finds proof of satellite TV. But at night when we’re on the sofa he sees the inscrutable stories flickering on the box in the corner. I note his disinterest: one of those things, whaddagonna do. But the fact that he doesn’t get the story doesn’t mean there’s not a story being told.
It's so hard to quote the guy, because I hate having to choose one paragraph and implicitly circular-file the rest. So go read the whole thing and put my mind at ease. Thank you... I feel much better.
(Oh, and I do believe that was my Dogcow post he was referring to. Hot diggety damn!)
|
|
13:57 - Fighting the Sandalistas
http://warnow.blogspot.com/2002_06_16_warnow_archive.html#77820517
|
(top) |
This article at War Now! could well be considered the manifesto for the new worldwide face-off that's coming-- deserving like nothing else has been of the title World War III.
The Kiwi author draws the battle lines as being between "civilization" and "barbarism"-- the former of which is exemplified by the capitalist and democratic middle class of the Western states, and the latter of which is an unlikely coalition between the "Jackboots"-- classic political idealists who have given us Hitler and Stalin-- and the "Sandals", or in other words the hippie-activist-Islamofascist axis. The members of this last group are described in many an example.
The article is good reading, and I recommend it-- except that there's one point where in his delineation of the Sandalistas faction, he lumps in-- as though out of hand-- the euthanasia supporters and abortion activists, tarring them along with destructionist barbarians as being "anti-human". I'm afraid I have to disagree there, as do some of the people in the article's Comments. I would say that being in favor of euthanasia and the right-to-die, as well as of abortion rights, is an affirmation of life. The issue involved is as follows: Begin with two lives, one happy, one miserable. Make your choice. Would you rather see a) two lives, both somewhat miserable, or b) one life, happy?
I hold that happiness is a force multiplier for life. And so one happy life is much preferable to two dismal ones.
This is a stance, I feel, that affirms the sanctity of life, but in a scientifically rational way. I'm of the mind that the purpose of being here on Earth is to maximize happiness and minimize suffering for the maximum number of people, and that goal cannot be achieved simply by setting as your carrot "saving all lives at all costs". It involves being a lot more judicious; and if an elderly relative is suffering in a coma, or if a baby would be born into a home that's lacking in attention or love, then it's criminal to sacrifice overall quality of life-- and cause additional suffering-- simply because of an unwillingness to end a life purely because it's human. That, I feel, is one of the most civilized levels a society can reach.
Other than that, though, thumbs-up.
|
| Sunday, June 16, 2002 |
19:40 - The White Man's Burden
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/channel/highlights_heat.html
|
(top) |
The National Geographic Channel today had a series of "Into the Fire" shows, with a group of American thrill-seekers and photo-journalists traversing the Sahara on fan-driven parasails with 4x4 support vehicles. Looked awfully fun.
Except that when they were in Chad, they had to spend a lot of time dodging rebel groups and anti-American sentiment. (Wasn't Chad one of the nations we'd listed as being known terrorist-harborers?) One of the team members' son was kidnapped (and later released) while they were there.
At one point, they came across a giant Mercedes truck with what had to be at least thirty men on its back, their bags of goods hung out over each side, perched precariously atop the mound like a Dr. Seuss drawing. It's a very National Geographic kind of visual-- gosh, look at the local laborers and how poor they are, and yet how carefree and simple their lives! Oh, for the purity of such a life. Do be a dear and turn up the A/C, would you?
At least, that's the impression the show seems to want to give; after the trekkers have conversed with the men on the truck in French (and convinced them with some difficulty that they were private citizens and not in fact agents of the American government (Oh, oui! Tres bien!), the adventurer told the camera what he had heard from the man he'd been talking to.
"He asked, 'Why are you so rich and we are so poor? Why are you driving this luxury 4x4 vehicle, while we're all piled up in the back of this truck? Why doesn't America give something to us, so that we can have it a little easier?' ... Kind of a hard question to answer."
Yeah, maybe it's hard to answer when you're sitting there in the Chad desert among thirty of these guys who already distrust you. But sitting here at home, I have two answers to offer:
- We've tried that. We've been sending food aid into countries like Somalia and Chad and Ethiopia and the like for decades now, and we've observed that the only thing that ever happens to it is that it gets intercepted by warlords and turned into guns to kill other warlords. (Then why don't they send in the US military to stop the warlords? What, you mean like in Mogadishu?)
- Why are you so poor? Because you live in a bloody desert. Chad has no useful arable land. Where do you expect wealth to come from? Buried treasure in the oases? An efficient manufacturing and ore-processing industry? The cultural purity of smiling local laborers? Look, some countries just happen to have more means to create wealth than others. America is rich because we took off from the most technologically and industrially advanced nation in Europe and annexed ourselves a gigantic landmass comprising every biome on Earth, full of enough natural resources to secede and become our own planet. Then we proceeded to advance the state of the art in agriculture, mining, civil engineering, and every other field to such an extent that if America hadn't existed, the planet would still probably be in the latter phase of the Industrial Age. That's why we're so rich.
To what extent are we obliged to divest ourselves of the wealth we have ourselves earned and inherited in order to even out perceived imbalances between ourselves and countries that haven't been so lucky or so diligent? Why is it our responsibility to make up for Chad's standard of living just because they can't make any food of their own? I mean, yes, I understand the whole thing about charity and all, and I'm all for it. If we're that much more comfortable, and would feel that much less of a pinch from giving some up, then by all means we should if it means raising the standard of living for people whose lives consist of traveling hundreds of miles a week on a towering truck and dodging armed rebel factions and warlords in order to obtain some semblance of subsistence in the middle of a famine. Not doing so makes us decadent and monstrous, and would mean we deserve the looks of disgust we get in the countries that would prefer to see us all dead.
But when there's such genuine inability to comprehend why Americans should have it so good-- why they should have air-conditioned SUVs and the wealth it takes to jaunt about the Sahara in a parasail just for the fun of it-- well, there's a certain point at which it becomes pointless to try to explain it. This isn't a world where righteousness and purity wins, much as the fundamentalist Muslims would like to believe that it is. Living a life of ascetic inconsequence and submission to the teachings of some ancient book don't make one rich or one's country supreme. This is a world where personal achievement and natural advantages will rule. It's called competition. It leads to capitalism and democracy. That's why we have SUVs, and why people living in the desert think we're evil.
We're not interested in empire. That age is long over, and we'd taken ourselves out of that game long before the European nations started to do so. We have our recipe for achievement, we've set up the tools we need to vault forward into the future, and we've tried to bring the rest of the world along for the ride-- but some of the world would rather stay behind. That's fine; far be it from us to dictate their domestic issues. But they don't get to blame us for it or knock down our skyscrapers just because they're pissed off that they're not the ones making Levi's and McDonald's burgers.
I dunno. I'm just sick of being made to feel guilty that our country has succeeded. Thanks a lot, National Geographic.
After all, can you imagine how poorly it would reflect upon the American people if, having started out with all the advantages we had, and with all the potential afforded us by our social and political system, we didn't become the dominant player in the world?
|
|
18:53 - Python Musings
http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/06/TheCompletePython.shtml
|
(top) |
It seems to me that the only reason that Python can still be shown is that it's considered a classic; it gets a "by", it's grandfathered. Even the politically-correct liberals enjoy Python. (Maybe there's hope for them.) In particular, all the fag-baiting that the show does: no-one would ever do anything like that now. ("Precision flouncing about" by a squad of soldiers? Yeesh.) I wonder whether gays now look at that and cringe, or if they're as amused by it as the rest of us? (The fact that Chapman was gay makes it all particularly surreal.)
Well, I'm sure there are some-- the kind who spend the day just looking for something to get offended by-- who cringe and bitch. But for my part, I can vouch that those are some of my most dearly treasured bits.
|
| Saturday, June 15, 2002 |
11:15 - Humboldt? They should have known better...
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/06/14/BU236636.DTL
|
(top) |
You know that Subaru ad, that sweet little story about the girl and her mom driving out into the woods in their Forester to release their bunny into the wild?
Well, Subaru has had to pull the ad, because of the complaints of rabbit fanciers.
The Chronicle reported the rabbit brouhaha on Wednesday. On Thursday Mark Darling, vice president for marketing at Subaru in Cherry Hill, N.J., said he had made the decision to pull the ad.
"Unfortunately, the message yielded an unintended conclusion, that being a domestic rabbit was released into the wild," said Darling. He said the critics were a "relatively small but passionate group, and, quite frankly, we have other things to attend to and do not need the distraction."
In other words, "Jesus Christ, you people! Get a frickin' grip!"
I've been very unsympathetic toward people who want certain things taken off of TV ever since Beavis was forced to stop saying "Fire". You don't like something, grit your goddamned teeth. You don't see me lobbying to get The 700 Club taken off the air, do you?
|
| Friday, June 14, 2002 |
15:05 - Hey, lady, it's not 1997 anymore
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-000041149jun12.story
|
(top) |
Did everybody see this? The principal of an elementary school in Santa Monica has banned "Tag". Yes, that Tag. The schoolyard game with "It". Because being "It" damages kids' self-esteem.
"This is all based on safety," said Samarge, also in her third year as school principal. "It has nothing to do with anything else except to reduce injuries for the kids."
But there was that statement in the school newsletter that seemed to trigger the debate. In the third paragraph of an article titled "Safety on the Playground," the piece reads: "The running part of this activity is healthy and encouraged; however, in this game, there is a 'victim' or 'It,' which creates a self-esteem issue. The oldest or biggest child usually dominates."
I'd love to see the playground equipment in Santa Monica parks. Big spongy plastic spheres, probably, sitting in a foot-deep bed of foam-rubber shavings. "Okay, class, take out your safety pencil and a circle of paper..."
Some people won't be satisfied until we live in a Nerf world, where kids can be allowed to roam free through the back alleys and schoolyards without the parents having to do anything themselves to take an active role in their development. If what they're concerned with is preventing more Columbines, you punish the bullies for specific acts-- don't blame the victims and refuse to lift a finger against the perpetrators because they're on the god-damned football team. And by banning "Tag", you're making kids think about ostracizing individuals years before they'd normally have started doing that anyway.
Give kids a chance to grow up among their peers, at their own speed. If you're trying to send them the message that when they grow up, the world will shield them from people saying offensive words and being ruthless in society and business-- you're condemning them to failure, and ensuring that the backlash from them will be one of intense racism, sexism, and nationalism from people who grew up frustrated that they were never allowed to work these feelings out. But if you send the message that they can succeed if they try, and people who cheat and bully you get thrown in the jug if you stand up to them-- that's healthy.
At least this article makes it sound like the parents at this school think the principal needs a new line of work-- like, say, lunch-lady. Good.
|
|
13:42 - What Makes a Zealot?
http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/02/06/13/1854211.shtml?tid=107
|
(top) |
The other day, the Gartner Group published the results of a study that concluded that from a Total Cost of Ownership standpoint, Macs are significantly cheaper to buy, own, operate, maintain, repair, and upgrade than PCs are. "Up to 36 percent more cost-effective", reads the report, which (like most Gartner studies) costs $95 for a copy (hence no direct link).
Someone posted regarding this story on Slashdot (follow the link), and it may as well have had an icon next to it of a bucket with CHUM printed on it. Slashdot, after all, is the nexus of ultra-budget-conscious Intel-hardware geek opinion; there's no way you can get away with claiming that Macs are cheaper than PCs without all the Linux geeks in the world whipping themselves up into a fervor with hardware price listings intended to prove that they can make a top-end computer, comparable to a $3000 one from Apple, with under $400. That's what they're all about, after all-- right? The whole point of Linux is effectively "free computing", and the lack of any requirement to have to spend any money on software.
There are a whole lot of people in the comments defending Apple, though, and providing real-world examples (from the business and home and education markets) that support the Gartner numbers. These arguments are all very much what we've seen before, nothing new here. But halfway down, you start seeing a different kind of argument being made. To paraphrase:
"I would buy a Mac tomorrow, I really would-- except for one deal-killing thing: the Mac Zealots."
Here we come to what is probably at the crux of the whole Mac-vs-PC debate: the smaller Apple's market share gets, the louder the Zealots get. And the Zealots are counterproductive. They drive away more potential business from Apple than they attract, though their only goal in life appears to be winning Mac converts. How can this be?
It's pretty simple, really. It's nothing new, and it's very human-nature. See, it's never really been about quality, or ease-of-use, or software availability, or DVD burning. It's been about Macs being different. The more the world standardizes on Windows, the more the Mac becomes seen as an outlying "freak" ghetto-- and no matter how many facts and studies the people in that ghetto can quote, and no matter how compelling their demonstrations and their visibly happier lifestyle is, Wintel users are made all the less likely to switch-- purely because of what the Mac world looks like:
A cult.
Let's think about this for a minute. Yes, all the jokes have already been made, about Steve Jobs being the David Koresh of the computer industry, about the legions of followers who dress like him and eat like him and worship the ground on which he walks. Yeah, yeah. But it goes beyond jokes, and I'd like to explore that a little bit. How are Mac Zealots similar to Religious Zealots? Really?
- We believe we have a "better way", and we want to advertise that fact
- We see unhappiness in the world around us (people who hate Windows), and we want them to be happier and live up to their full computing potential
- We want to reward the Company itself for its products, by winning more customers
We even use religious vocabulary: "winning converts", "proselytizing", "evangelism". We look at this in very much the way as an evangelical religious group does: we honestly believe that our way is better, and that other people would thank us in the long term if we could get them to See the Light.
What does this sound like? Mormons, if you ask me. And no matter how happy Mormons look, how compelling they can make their case, how much proof they can show that their way is better-- most of us resent the hell out of it.
It's the same way with the Mac. PC users know, deep down, that the Mac is probably better. (Why else would so many people be so adamant about plumping for it?) But the more their friends pressure them, the more they flaunt the virtues of their platform, the more the PC users are likely to simply dismiss it out of hand. It complicates things. They have a solution; they know it's not ideal, but what is, in this workaday world? Most PC users, even those who grudgingly acknowledge under pressure that the Mac offers an awfully attractive package, simply wish Apple would just hurry up and go out of business, so they can get on with their humdrum lives. At least it won't seem so humdrum if there aren't these freaks rubbing their noses in it all the time.
Again, it's all because Macs are "different". They're simply not what people are used to. Even the most tolerant and open-minded among us will have an aversion reaction to something that's different; it's nothing to be ashamed of, it's in our biology. It's how human societies evolved: we're wired to do pattern-matching on ourselves and our neighbors, and to formulate alliances based on commonalities between us and them. Similarly, we treat those who are different from us with initial distrust, because biologically they're less likely to be family, and more likely to kill you for your food. It's a genetic-survival thing-- we protect our own bloodline and try to drive away others. The Infinite Mind had a great article on that a while ago, read on NPR. We're wired to be racist. It's only in the last couple of hundred years that we've decided to actively override that hard-wiring through social consciousness; now that it's no longer evolutionarily beneficial to stick within our own kind, we may be able to move on and allow miscegenation to take place. ("May", I say, because on an evolutionary time-scale we're in a freakish spike of circumstances that may well pass in the blink of an eye-- a couple of thousand years, that is-- and return us all to a hunter-gatherer state where racism is again evolutionarily important.)
So it is with Apple. Let's look at how Macs have been regarded throughout history:
- 1984: When the Mac is first introduced, PC users dismiss it as a "toy" because of its icon-and-menu-driven interface, its upper-and-lower-case letters, and the fact that it can speak. Everybody knows, after all, that a "real computer" is command-line and can only produce beeps.
- 1990: As Windows 3.1 gains popularity, people ridicule the Mac because it's slow and monochrome. Apple jumps straight to 24-bit color while the PC market is using EGA graphics, but it takes them years to notice.
- 1995: Windows 95 is released, making the PC slow. Now people ridicule the Mac because of its one-button mouse, and claim that Macs can't be networked or read PC disks (both untrue). They also rail against how expensive Macs are (which is true). Why buy a Mac? Apple is going out of business.
- 1998: The affordable iMac is released, to widespread derision in the PC world. Everybody knows a "real computer" is a beige box, after all. Yet the entire consumer electronics industry is colorful and translucent within a year, every single computer shown in movies or on ergonomics posters is an iMac, and eMachines makes direct rip-offs of it. Now PC users ridicule the Mac because it doesn't have a floppy drive, even though the only thing they use one for is to reinstall Windows. Meanwhile, the iMac popularizes USB for the first time.
- 1999: The iBook is scorned as looking like a purse or a toilet seat, even though its design (and handle) makes it extremely durable and extremely portable. It also has AirPort, though nobody notices until Dell puts it in their laptops a year later and claims that they were the first to do so. PC users continue to ridicule Macs for not being networkable. (Meanwhile, OS 8-9 can mount drives remotely across the Internet.) The "Megahertz Myth" gains traction, and becomes another easy target for derision.
- 2000: The "Digital Hub" apps appear. iTunes has to be seen to be believed, and iMovie becomes the gold standard for home DV editing. PC users scoff at DV editing: Who would ever want to do THAT? iDVD brings DVD burning to the desktop for the first time ever. Who would ever want to do THAT? Now people ridicule the Mac for its old and unstable and drab-looking OS, now that Microsoft is making noises about moving the desktop OS market onto the NT/2000 line.
- 2001: OS X is released, addressing every complaint anybody has ever had about the Mac OS. But PC users ridicule it for being too colorful and slow. Subsequent releases make it much faster (when has that ever happened in the PC world?), and suddenly the whole UNIX user base is interested. But PC users still find things to complain about. Not enough games. Cutesy-looking hardware. That damn one-button mouse. Still too expensive. Apple is still going out of business (neat trick when they're making a profit). They're in a hardware dead-end with the PPC lineup, so don't buy a Mac-- in two years they'll be standing at the end of an alley, looking around uncertainly for the next PPC chip, which doesn't exist, and they'll be caught completely by surprise! Intel is the only way to go. They obviously have no plan for the future. They should port OS X and the iApps to Intel and make beige boxes! Macs suck! Everybody knows that. They can't be networked! They're monochrome! Windows XP rules, even though we hate it!
No company on Earth has ever been more diligent at addressing the market's complaints and requirements than Apple has. How frequently has Microsoft brought out some new innovative feature that genuinely enhances people's lives and creativity, or taken some decisive action to address a serious and long-standing concern on the part of their consumers? Why isn't that a determining factor in which company a buyer patronizes?
If we were all Vulcans, the above historical breakdown would be ludicrous. Logically speaking, the complaints that people have about Macs are spurious and keep being addressed in a way that never happens on the Wintel side. Unless your sole buying criteria are initial purchasing cost or software availability, it would be a no-brainer to go with a Mac.
But we're not Vulcans, and our subconscious tells us to use Windows. Yes, it sucks-- we all know that. But 95% of the market can't be wrong, can it? It's certainly easier to just go with the flow. Besides, what's the point of complaining about Windows' shortcomings? They won't get fixed-- or maybe they will. Who cares? It's much simpler to just learn to live with them than to fling ourselves into an orgy of oohing and aahing over a platform that takes such pains with its hardware and OS and applications as to make them works of art that are a joy to use. Who has time for that? I mean, look at these Mac people-- they love their Macs so much that their Macs become a way of life. You don't see us Windows users spending so much of our valuable time writing gigantic blog articles about how great Windows is, do you? We know it sucks, and we get on with our lives. You Mac Zealots are doing nothing but proving that having a better platform just makes you less productive.
....Hmm. And I suppose there's a point to be taken there. And that's really what I'm getting at: Mac Zealotry is a weird phenomenon. The true outspoken zealots may make up less than a percent of the computing world at large-- they're actually a small minority even within the Mac community-- but they're visible as all hell. (Notably, Linux Zealots make up a much larger segment of the Linux community-- because Linux is inherently designed to be a rebel's OS.) And when a PC user hears "Macs", he hears the shrieks of people like-- well, me, heh-- telling him that he's an unethical and brainwashed moron who's artificially limiting himself by using an inferior computing platform. And that makes him think, "Well, I don't care how good the Mac is. I ain't sharing a platform with him."
Am I saying that Mac evangelism is to blame for Apple's small market share and ever-unclear future? Only partially. Zealots have two effects. On one hand, yes, they tend to unnerve the very people they try to convince and convert, just like the Mormons on the doorstep with their gleaming smiles and their Dapper Dan hair and their smart pressed shirts and ties. (That's unnatural! Begone!) But on the other hand, it's because of the zealots that Apple still exists. That less-than-one-percent is responsible in no small part for buoying Apple's sales through the bleak times, for defending against the ridicule and slander and dismissal from the tech press and the general PC-using public, and (importantly) for creating what's become a very large network of websites committing to electronic permanence some of the foundational precepts that underlie our ideals as Mac users. The Mac community wouldn't be anywhere near as vibrant-- and, I daresay, neither would Apple-- without sites like MacSurfer, As the Apple Turns, MacInTouch, Think Secret, and MacKiDo. Zealotry doesn't entirely backfire-- it does do what it sets out to do, to a certain degree.
Just about everybody who works in technology probably has at least one friend or acquaintance who's a Mac user and is unceasingly "at him" to switch-- or at least to be suitably impressed by the things that the Mac can do. The Mac user might use "shame" tactics, demonstrating how the Mac is the platform that anyone who craves elegance in software design should be using. (Yeah, I know-- sorry.) The PC user is expected to ooh and aah, and being in that position makes people feel manipulated. So for most people, even though they might be impressed by the Mac, and even though they might honestly want to humor their Mac friend (hey, after all, he's a friend), the attitude of evangelism goes into the "con" column rather than the "pro". That's what we have to watch out for. Johnny, one of my co-workers, mentioned the other day how he has a friend who's been "working on him" for years, and is making slow but steady progress-- the friend thinks he's won a major victory by Johnny's recently buying an iPod. (Johnny doesn't think so-- he just really really likes the iPod. But he has slated a TiBook purchase for the near future.) The key to that is slow, steady, and non-confrontational advocacy, not zealotry. Nobody likes to feel preached to. Nobody likes to feel that their decision, their expertise, their entire technological experience is "wrong".
So why do I write all this Mac stuff here? Hey, I don't know-- I just find it interesting to do. I'm still astonished to find that a double-digit number of people are reading this site; I never expected more than myself and a few close friends to ever stumble across it. The purpose of this blog is for me to write down what's in my head so I can save it for later and find out what I was thinking on such-and-such a day. More often than not, I was surprised to discover-- because I never set out to focus on such a thing-- that what's on my mind is Mac stuff. I'm interested in finding out why I think the things I do on the subject, and this helps me organize my opinions. And if it succeeds in pleasing Mac-using readers or in convincing PC users that the Mac is worth a second look, so much the better.
I'm uninterested in being known as a Zealot. Even if I get labeled as one purely because Mac stuff makes up the majority of the content here, I'll fight that epithet. I try to cover as much negative Mac stuff as I do positive, and I try to explore the myriad sides of each given situation. As friends like Paul know, I'm often more of a devil's-advocate in one-on-one discussions than I am here-- I'm the one who has to be reassured by them that Apple isn't making some huge mistake by some move or other. I do have some goals-- I want to defend against slanderous attacks against Apple, like those that are frequently leveled in high-profile web forums, and I enjoy discussing Apple's prospects with people willing to engage in serious debate. I enjoy helping to spread the word about new products and good news. And I also enjoy trying to distill my feelings on Macs into opinion pieces that explain just what it is about their hardware and software that makes people like me willing to lay down our lives in order to see it survive.
Apple needs its zealots-- they've been around long enough that their existence must be factored into Apple's very business plan. But their influence is both a blessing and a curse, and Apple is succeeding today in winning back some market share in spite of them as much as because of them.
I hope this recent "Real People" ad campaign does something to alleviate that pressure. The people in it aren't Zealots for two reasons: 1) They're carefully chosen to be non-threatening and in positions of vulnerability, and they're on TV-- they're not friends that you don't want to risk offending, so what they're saying isn't directly aimed at you; and 2) it's actual advertising by the Company itself. People are leery of advertising that's not done by the actual company. They wonder, what's the company doing wrong if they have to have flunkies and spies infiltrating my circle of friends? Is there some kind of initiation ceremony? Where's the hidden camera? At least if it's coming out of the TV, it's in a familiar tableau, and passive. That may be the biggest stroke of insight in that ad campaign: it's a non-threatening counterpoint to the Zealotry in the real world, something that would-be switchers have a hard time getting past. Without the ads, the act of switching to the Mac seems like an act of joining a cult or buying a copy of Who's Who. With the ads, the act makes the transition to one of buying a product. And if there's anything Americans are comfortable with, it's buying a product.
The pieces are finally in place; Apple is at last in a position where it can begin to appeal to the PC market at large on its own terms, rather than as a kooky alternative underground rebellion. As the ranks swell, the Zealots will become less and less visible, less and less confrontational-- and less and less of an impediment to more people switching than ever before.
|
| Thursday, June 13, 2002 |
22:17 - So this is what Xbox advertising is reduced to...
|
(top) |
When all else fails, remember "Sex Sells". And if you're marketing to the adolescent g4m3r d3wd demographic, so much the better.
BY XB0X & WE GIVE U B00B!!!111`!1``
|
|
11:17 - What We're Up Against
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD38802
|
(top) |
Via Cold Fury, which has a slew of good stuff up ever since his DNS and hosting issues have been sorted out: a MEMRI excerpting of an article by Suleiman Abu Gheith, one of the al Qaeda mucky-mucks, explaining why we need to kill him and everybody who looks like him.
"We have not reached parity with them. We have the right to kill 4 million Americans - 2 million of them children - and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, it is our right to fight them with chemical and biological weapons, so as to afflict them with the fatal maladies that have afflicted the Muslims because of the [Americans'] chemical and biological weapons."
"Christianity is as bad as Islam because it kills people and rapes children," people whine. Yeah, well, I'm no big fan of that. But read this article, I dare you, and tell me we don't have bigger fish to fry. And fry them we must.
|
|
09:53 - Geoffrey Nunberg
http://www-csli.stanford.edu/~nunberg/writings.html
|
(top) |
Every time Geoff Nunberg's name comes up on "Fresh Air" on NPR, I turn the radio way up-- because I've come to look forward to his columns the way I look forward to new Apple product releases. Nunberg is a Stanford linguist who has worked at Xerox PARC, and as is frequently plugged, has a book of his collected columns called The Way We Talk Now.
A little while ago, he had a piece on journalistic that focused on the word roil; I found it to be so much fun I nearly had to pull over into the breakdown lane, the better to try to absorb it all. (How fortunate that it happens to be online!) And just the other day there was another piece by him, this time on the concepts of "moral equivalence", "moral relativism", "moral majority", and all other things "moral". It isn't online yet, more's the pity, but I'll be certain to link it here when it is-- because I'll likely be referencing it in anything I write in the future on those topics or anything I might be able to relate to them. This guy rules.
|
| Wednesday, June 12, 2002 |
01:28 - Regarding Euthanasia
http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/06/AnAtheistsDeath.shtml
|
(top) |
"The Doom of the World," they said, "One alone can change who made it. And were you so to voyage that escaping all deceits and snares you came indeed to Aman, the Blessed Realm, little would it profit you. For it is not the land of Manwë that makes its people deathless, but the Deathless that dwell therein have hallowed the land; and there you would but wither and grow weary the sooner, as moths in a light too strong and steadfast." But the King said: "And does not Eärendil, my forefather, live? Or is he not in the land of Aman?" To which they answered: "You know that he has a fate apart, and was adjudged to the Firstborn who die not; yet this also is his doom that he can never return to mortal lands. Whereas you and your people are not of the Firstborn, but are mortal Men as Ilúvatar made you. Yet it seems that you desire now to have the good of both kindreds, to sail to Valinor when you will, and to return when you please to your homes. That cannot be. Nor can the Valar take away the gifts of Ilúvatar. The Eldar, you say, are unpunished, and even those who rebelled do not die. Yet that is to them neither reward nor punishment, but the fulfilment of their being. They cannot escape, and are bound to this world, never to leave it so long as it lasts, for its life is theirs. And you are punished for the rebellion of Men, you say, in which you had small part, and so it is that you die. But that was not at first appointed for a punishment. Thus you escape, and leave the world, and are not bound to it, in hope or in weariness. Which of us therefore should envy the others?" And the Númenóreans answered: "Why should we not envy the Valar, or even the least of the Deathless? For of us is required a blind trust, and a hope without assurance, knowing not what lies before us in a little while. And yet we also love the Earth and would not lose it." Then the Messengers said: "Indeed the mind of Ilúvatar concerning you is not known to the Valar, and he has not revealed all things that are to come. But this we hold to be true, that your home is not here, neither in the Land of Aman nor anywhere within the Circles of the World. And the Doom of Men, that they should depart, was at first a gift of Ilúvatar. It became a grief to them only because coming under the shadow of Morgoth it seemed to them that they were surrounded by a great darkness, of which they were afraid; and some grew wilful and proud and would not yield, until life was reft from them. We who bear the ever-mounting burden of the years do not clearly understand this; but if that grief has returned to trouble you, as you say, then we fear that the Shadow arises once more and grows again in your hearts. Therefore, though you be the Dúnedain, fairest of Men, who escaped from the Shadow of old and fought valiantly against it, we say to you: Beware! The will of Eru may not be gainsaid; and the Valar bid you earnestly not to withhold the trust to which you are called, lest soon it become again a bond by which you are constrained. Hope rather that in the end even the least of your desires shall have fruit. The love of Arda was set in your hearts by Ilúvatar, and he does not plant to no purpose. Nonetheless, many ages of Men unborn may pass ere that purpose is made known; and to you it will be revealed and not to the Valar."
...
But Atanamir was ill pleased with the counsel of the Messengers and gave little heed to it, and the greater part of his people followed him; for they wished still to escape death in their own day, not waiting upon hope. And Atanamir lived to a great age, clinging to his life beyond the end of all joy; and he was the first of the Númenóreans to do this, refusing to depart until he was witless and unmanned, and denying to his son the kingship at the height of his days. For the Lords of Númenor had been wont to wed late in their long lives and to depart and leave the mastery to their sons when these were come to full stature of body and mind.
...
But for all this Death did not depart from the land, rather it came sooner and more often, and in many dreadful guises. For whereas aforetime men had grown slowly old, and had laid them down in the end to sleep, when they were weary at last of the world, now madness and sickness assailed them; and yet they were afraid to die and go out into the dark, the realm of the lord that they had taken, and they cursed themselves in their agony.
-- J.R.R. Tolkien, Akallabêth
This was my Bible in high school, and I still think it has some valuable metaphorical guidance on this issue. (No, I'm not a literalist when it comes to following the Silmarillion. But I'm not above recognizing when it has a point that happens to be applicable.)
|
|
21:26 - I can't believe what I'm seeing.
http://www.sunspot.net/la-fi-universal12jun12.story
|
(top) |
Somebody pinch me. It looks as though Sony's and Universal's record divisions have woken up suddenly having grown a brain, and they're doing what we had all considered to be the impossible dream: they're releasing music as digital singles, for less than $1, and whole digital albums for $10. And what's more, this music can be burned onto CDs.
The songs will be distributed first by Liquid Audio of Redwood City, Calif., whose audio format provides better sound quality than MP3 files. Liquid Audio delivers music to dozens of online retailers, including CDNow, Amazon.com, Best Buy and Sam Goody.
Liquid Audio files are scrambled so they can't be freely copied from computer to computer. But Universal has decided to let buyers burn the files onto conventional CDs in unscrambled formats, meaning they could be copied or moved freely from that point.
The major labels have resisted the idea of letting consumers burn downloadable songs because they believe it would encourage piracy. But Kenswil noted that songs are widely being pirated, so "you're not keeping anything from being open [to piracy] by copy-protecting the download."
This could get really interesting.
|
|
17:53 - Yeah, what he said.
http://www.coldfury.com/Entries/00000071.html
|
(top) |
Interesting how lately I keep seeing variations on this same sentiment, over and over, in blog after blog after blog (including mine):
As recently as a couple of years ago, I thought that both sides in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict had to share the blame equally for the ongoing trouble there. I felt sorry for the Palestinians, who had been "forced from their homes" - surely they deserved a country of their own as much as the Jews did? Surely they deserved to live in dignity, with the respect of their neighbors? Why were the Israelis so adamant, so doggone unreasonable, in their refusal to return to the 1967 borders? Well, allow me to state this here and now: I was an ill-informed idiot, guilty of forming an opinion without relying on actual facts. I do that now and then, unfortunately.
But no more. The Israelis are burdened with no more of a moral obligation to return the West Bank and Gaza to their tormentors than the US is to return Texas and California to Mexico. Less, really, because the Mexican government hasn't sworn to destroy us, and most important: the Mexican people don't support such an idea. Nor do I remember anybody dancing in the streets of Tijuana when the WTC came down.
As far as I'm concerned, the Palestinians can rot.
And yes, this is in response to something-- namely some damning poll results that indicate that whatever contagion has taken over the brains of the Palestinian populace, it's not something that we can combat with any human medicine that isn't copper-jacketed.
How much further does this have to go before we confront the fact that we're dealing with people who-- to paraphrase a Lileks column from several months ago-- can be fluent in English and conversant with the mechanicals of a 767, and yet unable to accept that its pilot could conceivably have plunked the plane into the ocean as an act of suicide, because he was a Muslim and Muslims don't do that?
We're not engaged in a political negotiation here. This is a first-contact situation with an alien invasion force, and we're going to have to start treating it as such.
Time to start hiring Babylon 5 writers into the Cabinet.
|
|
17:20 - Brilliant.
http://timblair.blogspot.com/2002_06_09_timblair_archive.html#77655269
|
(top) |
This post by Tim Blair, a parody of all those "I am a political refugee from Africa and would like to send you $15 million, just give me your bank account number" e-mails that no doubt everyone has received a couple of hundred times over by now, is genius.
|
|
17:16 - Premium Arabic Family Programming and Entertainment Worldwide™
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/355bqppp.asp
|
(top) |
Here's something else that I'm not willing to even say much about-- just to urge you to go and read it.
Any Muslims in the audience feel like standing up in outrage over this kind of thing happening under the aegis of their faith? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
|
|
09:57 - Dear Lord, defend me from your followers...
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/news/0602/12baptists.html
|
(top) |
I'm not even going to say much of anything about this; just go and read it.
On Tuesday current convention President James Merritt of Snellville backed Vines, saying "historically, he is on solid ground." Mohammed married a girl of 6 and consummated the marriage at 9, Merritt said. "In my book, that's a pedophile."
Christians and Muslims have "fundamental differences," Merritt said. "The God they worship is a God of works and a God of fear. The God we worship is a God of hope and grace and love and mercy."
The Southern Baptists' president-elect, the Rev. Jack Graham, also supported Vines' position, warning believers to "look carefully at who they're following and what they believe."
An angry Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, called the Baptist leaders' remarks "completely irresponsible and deeply offensive."
"This hands a victory to terrorists who want to drive a wedge between Christians, Muslims and Jews," he said. "This could harm America's interests worldwide."
Looks to me as though we're headed for a war between Christianity and Islam after all, no matter how much the rest of us have tried to avoid it.
In the 60s, everyone assumed the next big war would be thermonuclear. In the 90s, people said it would be a war of information-- defending economic and financial data against Chinese and Korean hackers. But now it's looking more and more like the next big war will be bloody, dirty, and holy-- and it may as well be fought with swords and shields and picks and shovels. Thanks to the miracles of religion, we're cast backwards by millennia.
|
| Tuesday, June 11, 2002 |
23:36 - I'll take a Cold War over a Holy War
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/business/1448072
|
(top) |
Looks like we're starting to get oil from Russia now.
Reports surfaced last week that Russian oil loaded on a tanker in Greece was bound for the United States. An Exxon Mobil spokeswoman would say only that the company does not comment on specific crude oil purchases.
Imagine... a future in which the US doesn't have to depend on Saudi oil, because it comes from Russia-- now an ally.
Of course, this is what we've been trying to do now for years, and the impetus for great conspiracies like "The US government itself perpetrated the 9/11 attacks so that we could have an excuse to eliminate the Taliban and run pipelines through Afghanistan to the Caspian oil fields". But, well, regardless of what some people will see it as a sign of, it's still a plenty good idea.
|
|
23:21 - Now that I wasn't expecting...
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0611LIFESTYLE-LEISURE-ARABS-GAMESHOW-DC.html
|
(top) |
My oh my. I must admit that I had no idea there was an Arabic version of The Weakest Link, must less that it's emceed by an evil little horn-rimmed Lebanese woman who scandalizes the Muslim world-- at least, the ones with TV-- with her audacity and criticism of the losing players.
'She's a bitch,'' said Dabbah, a barman in Beirut. ''There's no need to humiliate people just because they don't know the answer. God help her poor husband.''
Reams of newsprint have been dedicated in Lebanese papers to criticizing and even insulting Khoury's stern manner.
And while younger women tend to admire her bold approach and older women have grown to respect her, some still take a more traditional stand.
''She behaves just like a man,'' said Mona, a school teacher and avid watcher of television games shows. ''Who does she think she is? She should be more polite and feminine,'' she said of the crop-haired presenter who always appears in a sharp black suit.
I'd never thought of game shows as being listable among Barbie dolls and tight jeans as our premier weapons against Islamofascism, but...
|
|
22:30 - I have a new aspiration.
http://www.paulkrassner.com/homersuppressed.htm
|
(top) |
Here, go check this out... it's Dan Castellaneta (Homer Simpson) introducing a live performance by satirist/humorist Paul Krassner. There's an MP3 of the intro to download, well worth the 1.6MB.
Dan Castellaneta, who does the voice of Homer on The Simpsons, graciously agreed to introduce my performance, which he did from an offstage microphone in order to maintain the image of that blustery cartoon character.
Aww. I always enjoy seeing voice actors do their signature voices live; it's such a trip, seeing familiar voices come out of totally unfamiliar figures. I'd love to see Dan do Homer live. But this is still funny, regardless.
|
| Monday, June 10, 2002 |
18:32 - Some first-rate eclipsing here at Lord's...
|
(top) |
Here are some photos of the solar eclipse that just got finished. We've got the shadows of the trees on the wall of our building, with each aperture between the leaves acting like a pinhole, with the crescent shape clearly visble in each one; and also we have the image of the sun itself, taken through the Mylar of two floppy disks pressed together. (Who said floppies didn't have their uses?)
|
| Sunday, June 9, 2002 |
13:17 - Scooby Dooby Don't
|
(top) |
I wonder where it is that Cartoon Network gets its demographic.
We've already determined that they treat Scooby-Doo as the default filler material, especially on weekends, and during any time slot when you're likely to want to just sit down and relax for some fun popcorn-munching viewing material. Turn it on some weeknight, hoping for some PowerPuff Girls or maybe even Courage the Cowardly Dog. And what do you get? Scooby-bloody-Doo.
We've already determined that Cartoon Network fans have enough of a grass-roots motivation for letting their dissatisfaction be known that they're willing to create a petition for the reduction of Scooby-Doo airtime. But the programming people evidently have access to market data that's more accurate and valuable to them than online petitions signed by hundreds of people, because they've reacted to the release of this looks-to-be-godawful live-action Scooby-Doo movie by moving "Scooby Movies" from their accustomed 2:00AM slot right into prime time, right when I get home from work. Interspersed with bizarre and facetious interviews with the even-then-pathetic "guest stars" who were on the shows, talking about how much fun it was to make them and what Scooby is like off the set. (Yeah, yeah.)
Let's not forget, this is Cartoon Network here-- the network that has created whole late-night Adult Swim blocks catering specifically to cartoon geeks like me who love Space Ghost and Home Movies and anime and John Kricfalusi. (I hear tell that Cartoon Network has hired John K. to finish out that infamous "Yogi Bear" series that he'd been contracted to do by H-B, of which he only completed those two nefarious episodes which they're now showing on Adult Swim on occasion. The next episode reportedly focuses on Boo-boo's sexual issues, and on the North American Man-Bear Love Association. Oh, for a world where such a thing can be reviewd by South Park's censors instead of those for Dexter's Laboratory.) And the demographic also includes guys like James Lileks and Steven den Beste, the latter of whom likes Dragon Ball Z. (No, I'm not gonna laugh. Okay, maybe one little half-Nelson. Haw!)
So, then, what the hell's up with all the Scooby-Doo? Do that many people really love that stupid-ass show? When they had that "presidential election" schtick back in 2000, Scooby won the Presidency, beating out all the current most popular characters. What is this-- nepotism? Are there cranky old guys in propeller beanies working at Cartoon Network right now with posters on their cubicle walls of Davey Jones and Eddie Winters and the Addams Family, who spend all their time writing analytical tracts about the philosophical significance of each S-D episode like those people in college who wrote about how Mighty Morphin Power Rangers was the greatest and most insightful TV series ever made?
Without them, Cartoon Network would be hands-down the greatest network in TV history.
Where can we find these people, and how can we stop them?
|
|
12:38 - Where's my dose of sanity?
http://www.muslimpundit.com
|
(top) |
It's been an awfully long time since Adil at MuslimPundit has made any of his searingly insightful and well-researched posts about the idiocy of his co-religionists.
I hope he hasn't been put under fatwa of death and executed for committing offenses against Muhammad.
|
| Saturday, June 8, 2002 |
20:49 - Weekends of Picnics, Barbecues, and Klez
|
(top) |
Just got back from an afternoon picnic up at Grant Park, under the shoulders of Mt. Hamilton, to which we rode in a motorcycle procession-- myself on my ZX-11, Lance and Dave on the Buell S3, Dusty on his M2, Steve on his Suzuki SV650s, and Tor on his Gold Wing, with Drew and David bringing up the rear in their car. I got blisters on my feet from running after footballs in my motorcycle boots, but I've 'ad worse.
Besides, I got to test-ride the SV and the Gold Wing after we got back. The Wing was very trippy-- it makes you feel like you're in a Cadillac instead of on a bike, and the power just gets going and keeps going. But the SV is much closer to what I want in a bike-- very attractive styling, a small and lithe frame, reasonable power, and lots of agility (for maneuvering in parking lots as much as anything else). The seating position is a little bit cramped for me, but at least now I know what it's like to ride something in that class. Like, for instance, the Aprilia SL1000 Falco that I want so very very much. (Which, incidentally, the owner of the SV said that he planned to get as his next bike. Woo-hoo! My motorcycle tastes aren't unique and freaky.)
So now that's over, and I get to spend the rest of the weekend listening to the interminable whooping and coughing that accompanies any hockey game, while I get that DV editing out of the way-- as well as cleaning out about 700 Klez e-mails out of my mailbox. (For those who don't know about it, Klez is the most recent MS Outbreak virus/worm; it combs through your address book and your browser cache for e-mail addresses to use as the senders and recipients for copies of itself that it sends out.) I've received several thousand of these over the past three weeks, and while I can filter them, it's getting really old. Especially because there's a secondary effect to this one.
See, because Klez gets its sender and recipient e-mail lists from pawing through the Web pages in your browser cache, that means that owners of popular websites are particularly hard hit by it. Not just because everybody has a copy of your website and sends you copies of Klez. That's fine; that can be filtered. No, the really insidious bit is that it spoofs the sender so that other recipients think that it was you who sent it-- and if you have a popular website, that means that "you" are sending out Klez messages thousands and thousands of times a day to random other people.
Yes, I have a popular website. (Not this one, lionking.org.) And now I'm getting messages every couple of days from worried people all over the net who either want to alert me that some spammer is using lionking.org to send spam out from, or to scream at me for spamming them myself. If they'd just check the headers, they'd know that it's not me that's doing this-- but who in this world knows how to check headers? We live in a world of computer newbies, and it's only getting more so-- which is a good thing in many ways, as it forces companies to develop good software that's easy to use. But it's also a death-trap for companies that seem to rely on customers being security-conscious and willing and able to download patches for their crappy, buggy, ubiquitous software (e.g. Outlook).
I have to wonder, whenever I see one of these virii/worms making the rounds, whether the author had a specific type of target or victim in mind. (Nimda and Code Red, for instance, targeted people with Windows NT Server and not enough neurons to rub together to realize that they were running a web server on it-- let alone a crappy and buggy web server with exploitable security holes). Most of the "Anna Kournikova Naked" type of viruses target people who like to see celebrities naked (that's why I was wondering about that earlier this week). And in this case, Klez seems to be targeting people with popular websites-- because that's who's suffering most.
If you're using Outlook: PLEASE CONSIDER USING SOMETHING ELSE. Please... I'm begging you here.
|
| Friday, June 7, 2002 |
02:20 - It's "just defiance"-- but defiance is everything
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27860
|
(top) |
Ann Coulter says to Build Them Back, exactly as they were-- perhaps bigger, but definitely not smaller.
There have been many unsubstantiated assertions that no one would rent property in a rebuilt World Trade Center. But if fear of another terrorist attack were a major factor in New Yorkers' decisional calculus, they wouldn't be living in New York. The military has the technology to make the buildings safe from incoming missiles. Sept. 11 was a sucker punch. That particular trick doesn't work twice.
Moreover, this argument neglects to consider that by the time a new World Trade Center is built, Arabs will be about as threatening as the Japanese. Who would have imagined after Pearl Harbor that the Japanese were governable? Yet Japan hasn't shown a disposition to fight in 60 years. It is the rare individual who does not succumb to horrendous physical pain. Muslims feel humiliated now? We'll show them humiliated.
Aesthetes complain that the buildings were ugly. Perhaps. But the important thing is, they were really big. There can be a new design, but whatever goes up on that site has got to be bigger and better than the buildings the savages destroyed.
Read the whole thing; I had a hard time picking two or three paragraphs to quote.
It's clear to me that rebuilding on the site is a project that can't be dictated by economics alone; it's something we will have to attack as an ideological imperative, a symbol, a public work, like the dams in the 30s. They were useful, yes, and essential-- but they were also art, monuments that captured the spirit of an age. The WTC should be no less. It may turn out to be impractical; people might not even rent out all the floor space. But that's a subsidy that we as a nation should be proud to pay.
If they had stood for another fifty years, the towers would probably have been designated a national historic monument or something, and great pains would have been taken to preserve them as they were. Now, they should be afforded the same honor that would have been due them, plus a whole lot more.
To me, that means putting them back up, so similar to the previous towers that the opening of Crocodile Dundee II wouldn't look anachronistic. And holding a grand opening during which the biggest American flags on the face of the Earth would be draped down their eastern walls.
|
|
18:12 - I can't add anything to that...
http://joyoftech.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/344.html
|
(top) |
|
|
13:45 - We Defend Ourselves with Star Wars and the Heart of Gold
http://www.kenlayne.com/blogarchives/week_2002_06_02.html#002400
|
(top) |
Ken Layne speaks for the Secular Humanist American Populace (which, by comparison to any Islamofascist, nearly every single American is, right up to Falwell):
Yeah, it's cheap and wrong to quote a Star Wars movie when dealing with murdering bombers, but I think it's better than quoting Allah. I'm tired of Allah. I'm tired of Allah and Jeebus and the whole gang. What the hell have they ever done for anybody?
It is said that people will always look for some spiritual deal, no matter how rich and happy they are. Los Angeles is being savaged around the country right now because we have a basketball coach who wants his team to meditate before a game. But compare that to the scumbags running out of Jenin or Gaza or Saudi Arabia. Madonna doing yoga is harmless. Freaks doing jihad against office towers or a commuter bus is cancer.
Cut it out. Root cause? Idiots who believe in Super Gods. Ain't no super gods. Just us. I've read in my local Arafat daily that Americans who support Israel are right-wing religious folk. Really? I've seen a few blogs by such people, and I'm glad they're around, but most people I know are agnostics who started off wishing the best for Palestinian Arabs. Now, they're sick of it all.
Oh, you mean like me. Good, I'm not the only one.
They didn't have Star Wars when the holy texts were written, Ken. Those texts were Star Wars.
I'm also sick, by the way, of pretending that capitalism and democracy and a culture of entertainment consumption is sick and evil. It's not. We've seen evil. We know what these words we've been bandying about really mean, and there is no shame and no fascism in our recognizing that living a life that glorifies individual freedom and achievement and mutual respect in a heterogeneous world is inherently superior. I'm sick of having to avoid using that word lest I be accused of being an arrogant, self-centered American. Peggy Noonan of the WSJ is similarly fed up.
Norm Mineta, our transportation secretary, has a searing memory, and that memory determines U.S. airport security policy in 2002. When he was a little boy at the start of World War II, Mr. Mineta and his Japanese-American family were sent to an interment camp. It was unjust and wrong. The Japanese of America in 1942 were American citizens, not illegal aliens or visitors newly arrived; moreover, they had never, not one of them, launched an attack on the United States. What FDR did to them was wrong.
But the facts of Japanese-Americans in 1942 do not parallel the facts of our enemies today. Our enemies has already killed civilians and announced they will kill more. We know who the enemy is--we know many names, and we certainly know the general profile--and we have every right, or rather duty, to give those who fit the profile extra scrutiny. Instead we play games and waste time wanding people we know to be innocent, and searching their tired old shoes. We do this to show we're being fair. But we really know otherwise, all of us.
We are being irresponsible and careless in the hope that history will call us tolerant and compassionate. It is vanity that drives us, not the thirst for justice and a safer world. Mr. Mineta has received many awards for his sensitivity to ethnic profiling. Good for him, but I'd personally give him an award if he'd begin to act like a grownup and recognize that his childhood trauma shouldn't determine modern American security policy.
(I quote the same three paragraphs that Glenn Reynolds did because they happen to be the best ones for the topic at hand. I add this disclaimer not because I hope that history will not judge me a plagiarist, but because I'm slowly waking up. I'm slowly coming to grips with the fact that there are some absolutes in the world, or things that are close enough to absolutes as to be indistinguishable from them. I'm beginning to accept that some things are more important than how we're thought of by our peers.)
Let's say that within six months, if we were to do nothing further in our war against terrorism, a nuclear attack of some sort were to flatten New York. What would we do then? I'd imagine that we would go through our list of terrorist-supporting states, one by one, quickly and methodically, and transform them into wholly controlled American protectorates with very little surviving infrastructure and substantially less civilian population. A terrible thing to have to do, but it's our tradition these days to respond to any terrible thing that happens by taking whatever precautions are necessary to prevent that exact same thing from happening again. Like antibodies to a virus, we've ensured that nobody's going to be able to use box-cutters to hijack a plane and fly it into a building again anytime soon, or to carry C4 onto a plane in his shoes. But the problem with antibodies is that they can be easily duped by a trivial mutation in the virus. We're closing a whole series of barn doors after the respective horses have left. We may well be unable to stop the next attack, whatever form it takes, once the operation is actually underway and the planes are in the air and the bomb is in play or what-have-you.
So what's the alternative? Why, taking whatever precautions are necessary to prevent the terrible things from happening in the first place. In the case of terrorism on a global, city-destroying scale, that means flattening entire Muslim countries. And how do we work up a national mandate to do that, if we're not responding to an actual attack on us in kind? We don't. We have never been able to. America just doesn't work that way. We're deadly in our retaliation, but retaliation is all it ever is. And that's what the bin Ladens of the world are counting on.
They know we can't bring ourselves to strike at them first. They know how much ridicule Clinton faced after his cruise missiles failed to kill Osama in his hut. They know what kind of trouble we get into with the world if we act like "cowboys". They know we're such wusses that we'll refrain from pre-emptively attacking radical Islam at its core as long as we have no clear-and-present threat short of a giant skywritten message over New York reading DEATH TO AMERICAN INFIDELS, spelled out by the contrails of North Korean nuclear missiles covered with scrawls of Allahu Akbar.
Fitting, isn't it, that "Star Wars" was what we'd dubbed the system that was supposed to protect us from that kind of attack, if it had ever been made to work?
Speaking of which, Lileks liked episode II. A lot. And to see why this is not a bizarre digression, read his Bleat. He has insights into the nature of Good and Evil, and Darkness and Reality, that are more than a little bit applicable to our current times. As was the Han Solo quote that Ken Layne offers in the first linked article.
I am ready, finally, to admit that I unconditionally prefer the world in which I live, where our biggest problems have to do with whether Anakin Skywalker is a believable character, to the world that is populated by people who are committed to a cause for which they will happily give their lives in order to see us dead. Ours is the world of the future, and anybody who agrees is welcome to come along for the ride. But anybody who lashes out at us out of spite and in a tantrum over how their Super God is no longer relevant to anybody but them-- well, it's time we started hitting them harder than they plan to hit us. That's the only way to stop them. They're designed not to understand reason or feel pain. They're trained not to value their own lives or the distinction between military and civilian targets. They've engineered themselves to be impossible to reform or to integrate into a world where they are not supreme. And so, tragic and horrible as it is, and as shitty as it is that we don't yet have the technology to imprison them in an envelope of Slo-Time and seal it with the Wikkit Key, we have to do the next best thing.
We have to put aside our vanity and our hope that we won't be judged fascist by future generations. Because if we don't, the only future generations to judge us will be the ones who call us demonic infidels already.
To what extent are we willing to go to prevent New York from turning into a fallout zone? We know what our enemies are willing to do, and we know that the only thing keeping them from doing worse than they already have is the lack of means, which they will undoubtedly gain if we just give them enough time. Is our safety from the next cataclysmic blow worth committing an action which the whole world will surely "condemn" <ack, pth>? What's the greater catastrophe?
We who have seen the future, even if it's a future a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, say that that future is worth protecting at any cost.
|
| Thursday, June 6, 2002 |
03:29 - Multilingual Fun
|
(top) |
"Brian! You took Spanish in high school, right?"
It was about 5:00 PM, and Richard was bearing down on my cubicle with that hopeful grin and desperate eyes of a man who has to call back a customer in Spain to tell him that he's ready to load the new upgraded software image onto his device and reboot it remotely, and whose only Spanish-speaking customer-ops guy had just gone home for the day.
"Uh... yeah...."
It's been seven or eight years since I've used Spanish in any practical context. I've never had the occasion, other than to listen to internal conversation of the people working at Taco Bell and to thank them when I hear them putting the proper funky decals on my complicated household-wide order. "Gracias!" I'd say, and they'd spin around, utterly startled that I could understand them and that I was paying attention.
So I was recruited to call up this guy in Spain, who spoke no English, and tell him "Hi-- we're ready to reboot the unit now and install the new image." Ya estamos listos para... er... umm.... What's "reboot" in Spanish?
Richard had the bright idea of switching one of our computers to Spanish and looking in the menus. He grabbed my Windows box and started -- well... he started out looking very purposeful and confident, but he was soon floundering and lost. Meanwhile, I fired up System Prefs in OS X, dragged Español to the top of the "preferred languages" list, quit it and reopened the app, and looked under the Apple menu, whose members were now all in Spanish. "Ah," I said. "Reiniciar."
So I call the guy up, I walk him through the reboot process in Spanish that comes freakily back to me on demand out of the depths of my brain, and we hang up amicably having done the necessary deed. At the very least, we seem not to have created an international incident. So that's good.
Anyway, this brought us into a curiosity-which-reinicié-the-cat exploration of Windows and how to change the default language. (We couldn't leave bad enough alone.) We found that the closest thing to it is the "Regional Settings" control panel, which baffled us with its odd terminology (what user has any idea what a "locale" is?), its half-explained controls and menus ("Your system is configured to read and write documents in multiple languages." That's nice. What in hell does it have to do with this list of languages with checkboxes next to them? What does checking them do? Who knows?), its impenetrably named code-page templates, and its seven or eight different places to do anything and everything. And nowhere in all this mess does it give you to understand that you don't even get any of those other languages for the OS interface; if you want Windows in Spanish, you have to install the Spanish version of Windows. Charming.
Whereas in OS X, it's all Unicode-based; so you simply drag the languages in the list into the order you prefer them in, and from then on any application you launch will go down that list until it finds a localized set of strings that matches your most preferred language, and uses that.
But that too got us thinking. I'd noticed that if you go to Google and select the "Language Tools", you get to see the Google interface in any of thirty or forty different languages, from Punjabi to Slovenian to Klingon to Elmer Fudd. Since we have Unicode fonts, we get to see things like Japanese, Russian, and Vietnamese in their native fonts, looking smooth and crisp, with all the letters beautifully rendered and accounted for.
But they're not all there. Not quite.
We couldn't help but notice that the Arabic page showed a bunch of weird, blurry squares. I'd never really paid much attention to this before; I'd assumed that it was just some kind of weird Unicode thing, a token that shows up differently in different displays. But then I noticed that the squares have what looks like an Arabic letter inside them.
Then I remembered that in the classic Mac OS, any undisplayable characters were shown as squares. So I thought, "I wonder"... and dragged a few of them over into TextEdit and cranked up the font size.
Look at that. It's squares, like always, for undisplayable characters. But now that it's all vector graphics, and because the Arabic font sets apparently aren't done yet (as they keep completing point releases of OS X, they keep adding character-set packs that fill out these blocks of letters), it's squares with cool information in them. The Unicode range that Arabic occupies, plus a central symbol to tell you what will eventually go there.
This is what it looks like when Apple isn't quite done with something.
So our curiosity was running rampant now; we switched into Unicode hex input mode (hold down Option and type four-digit hex numbers) and started entering values, to see what the ranges were like and what they were assigned to, and what symbols they had:
Mmm-mm. Isn't that insane? I love it. (And especially that Dr. Seuss-looking "Private Use" one.) Apple even makes unimplemented features look cool. These squares sit at the beginning of each block of assigned characters and define what that block is going to be, and if the characters haven't all been finished yet, they all show up as that generic identifier.
Oh, and depending on which letter you have selected, the available fonts in the font panel change. Select the Hangul character, and the six or seven dedicated Hangul fonts become available in the list.
There's always something bizarre and new lurking in an esoteric corner...
|
|
21:02 - So much more than just turbans
http://frontpagemag.com/columnists/glazov/2002/glazov06-06-02.htm
|
(top) |
Jamie Glazov continues his exploration of the real Islam: the one that dynamites ancient cliffside Buddhas because they're offensive to Muhammad, that rejects all Western ideas (like art, science, and democracy) as Satanic evils, that tries to forbid people from quoting from the Koran because it "could be seen as defamatory to Islam", and that therefore is patently designed to be incompatible with any modern Earth founded on notions like democracy and innovation and change and individualism.
In the Islamic Arab world, any foreign idea is heavily suspect. Any Western notion is automatically associated with evil. Thus, if the infidels say that an object will fall because of the laws of gravity, Muslims will suspect this to be a demonic lie. But if the same laws of gravity are sanctioned by a voice that is seen as representing authentic Islam, then such laws are automatically believed.
Individualism, creativity and originality are non-existent in the Arab world. And it is no mystery why the worlds of competition and commerce have spawned economic success stories in places like Japan and other Pacific societies in the post-WWII era, while the Arab world has been ridden with falling incomes, economic lethargy and social stagnation.
The bottom line is that the very notion of any new invention or innovation (Bida) is seen in Islam as being an offense to Allah. This is why, whenever anything even remotely close to a debate occurs in the Islamic Middle East, the accusation of Bida, which remains the most popular and effective accusation in the Arab world, immediately terminates the debate. The individual accused of Bida knows where the accusation can lead.
There you have it. "Invention" is a dirty word. Accuse someone of "innovating", and you may as well have provided photographic evidence and a signed affidavit witnessing that he rapes small children. (Sounds like Bill Gates must be Muslim. Nyuk, nyuk! Anyway.)
We all learned about Islam in high school. We all heard the story of the Prophet's life, of his flight to Medina, of his revelation, of the structure of Heaven and the nature of the Prophets, of the Five Pillars of Islam and the pilgrimage to the Ka'aba, of muezzins and mithrabs and mosques. We saw and admired the art and the architecture and the history of military success, and we listened to "Rock the Casbah" and saw pictures of the grinning, sunglasses-wearing Saudi sheikhs and concluded that Islam was a very romantic, if somewhat kooky, religion that deserved every bit of the success it had won in the years since the seventh century. It was awfully hip to imagine oneself expressing one's rebellious spirit by praying five times a day on a little woven mat in a certain compass direction to a god that none of your friends really knew about. To learn Arabic-- the language that God speaks, obviously, no question about it-- was like learning Japanese for an anime fan. It's romantic, it's exotic, it's cool. Wearing turbans and white sheets and carrying scimitars would just rock.
But-- and I don't know if it was just my experience, or if everybody's exposure in school to Islam was so carefully engineered and so precariously balanced between fact and romance as to make the religion seem so attractive and humane and peaceful and empowering and misunderstood and deserving of respect as one of the Three Great Occidental Religions.
But the more we read, and the deeper we dig, the more it seems clear that Islam is like something out of a really fucked-up science-fiction novel. A race of people who believe the words of a book written in the desert fourteen hundred years ago so strictly that any questioning of or modifications to those teachings is punishable by death? That they will actively reject any outside influences and the concept of human reason which would make those outside influences seem obvious? That they will live, like robots, according to strict and arbitrary rules of movement and life and conduct and reaction? What is this, Star Trek? How did we end up sharing a planet with these people?
From another Glazov article for which he's almost certainly under fatwa of death:
I encourage my readers to sit down and actually take the time to read the Qur’an and Hadiths (the sayings and doings of Muhammad as recorded by his companions). You will find that there is not one area of a Muslim’s life that is left open for individuality, originality and creativity.
From the moment a Muslim wakes up, he has to start going through a process of rigid procedures. First and foremost, he has to wash a certain way. He even has to clean his nose in a specific manner, and he has to do repeat this procedure three times. This is essential because Islam teaches that the devil spends the night in the cavity of the nose.
A Muslim is not to touch any utensil unless he has washed his hands three times. He is also not allowed to urinate in stagnant water.
When Muslims do "number two," they are forbidden to sit and are instructed to adopt a squatting position while leaning heavy on the left foot.
I can’t help but wonder: is there an instructional Islamic video for this? What happens if a Muslim leans on the right foot?
This goes on and on. And remember, any secular American "Muslim" that you know who does not do these things is not really a "Muslim"-- because unlike the loose definition of "Christian" (being "anybody who accepts Christ as his savior"), "Muslim" (as they will firmly tell you) strictly means someone who adheres, to the letter, to the Koran and Sharia Law. That means praying while picking your nose, three times a day.
Nor will Sharia Law countenance any other culture to exist that does not follow the same laws.
As long as Islam continues to exist in its current form, it will try to eliminate foreign demonic influences (like democracy) by attacking it in jihad. But as Glazov says, we can't change Islam, without it ceasing to be Islam-- by definition (because Islam is defined by the verbatim Koran and not changing it under any circumstances). So what do we do?
We have two choices. We can all become Muslims and live according to Sharia Law. Or we can take some kind of action which removes the warhead from the missile that is international jihad.
The question is, what possible form can that action take-- rendering Islam harmless to its neighbors-- short of lobbing a cruise missile into Mecca?
We'd better figure it out, or the world will be a very unpleasant place for a great many people for a long, long time-- after all, jihad only now, finally, has the weapons with which to wage real war against the infidels, and the motivation to do it. And every day that we don't figure it out, some potential invention from an ingenious Muslim mind is lost forever to history because it would have been Bida.
Whether it's Muslims vowing to bring death to the infidels, or Jews debating whether riding the elevator on a Saturday is forbidden because pushing the buttons is "creating fire", or Christians deciding whether priests should be celibate or whether gays are automatically denied Heaven-- this is what we mean when we say religion is such a damning influence on humanity. These are the kinds of questions it makes us have to ask ourselves.
|
|
10:14 - You read Lileks now.
http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/02/0602/060202.html#060602
|
(top) |
Regarding the Ashcroft fingerprinting proposal:
I don’t believe it. I don’t believe most Americans who practice Islam are going to be offended by this. And if some are, let me be honest: I don’t care. I am way past caring. I have not a jot of the care-sauce left in my bones. The care tank is empty. There’s no one home in Careville. The dog ate my care. The Care Crop didn’t come up this year. Self.com/care comes up as a 404.
Would I raise an eyebrow if the government quarantined everyone with a Koran, kept them in holding cells for a week, tagged them with a microchip and sprayed them with a dye that shows up on orbiting satellites? ? Yes, I would. I’m raising an eyebrow right now, just for practice’s sake. But when these people get hysterical about co-religionist non- citizens being photographed and fingerprinted, I not only disregard what they say now but whatever they say in the future, as well as whoever cites them as an authority.
Besides, I don't seem to recall huge rallies of American Muslims congregating on the Mall in Washington to express their support for the US and their furor over the hijacking of their faith by some wackos from Saudi Arabia. We all expected it. Why wouldn't we? Who would want to be associated at a casual glance with the 9/11 hijackers and with bin Laden? Who wouldn't rise up in grass-roots protest in a show of sincere loyalty to stem any tide of public mistrust which might be turned, however wrongly, against them?
If they're going to rise up and complain now about the fingerprinting of non-US citizens, when they didn't rise up before and complain about the tarnishing of the good name of Islam, then my well of sympathy will have run dry too. The best thing may be to make the best of the situation they've made for themselves and let those immigrants be fingerprinted like the rest of us have to be when we're in elementary school. Because what I seem to remember are Muslims putting up anti-Israel "blood libel" posters and beating up Jewish students at a rally at SFSU, and thousands of pro-Palestinian protesters gathering on the Mall to denounce Israel's brutal actions in Ramallah and Jenin and the US' support for them. Now, if these guys are more concerned with defending Arafat's suicide bombers than with being treated like they were all a bunch of Mohammed Attas, well, that's fine-- it is, after all, a free country. But they'd better not act surprised when people infer that if they support one group of Islamic terrorists, they might support another too.
No, I'm not saying it's time we put Muslims in ghettos and hold pogroms. To my understanding, we're one of the countries on earth least likely to do such things. Acts of intimidation against Muslims in America after 9/11, while it was feared that they'd be numerous and unstoppable, have turned out to be vanishingly few. Instead, synagogues in France are burned and Jewish members of the Norwegian parliament are forbidden from wearing Stars of David on their lapels and the German government cautions Jews not to wear yarmulkes or anything that would make them "stand out" as Jews. Yeah, go on. Take that moral high ground. I dare you. Oh, wait. You did. Now I have to figure out what to do with someone to whom you say "I dare you" and then does the thing you dared him to do.
I could be wrong, but I believe tradition recommends socking him in the nose.
I'm with you, James. I care enough not to care.
|
|
09:38 - Eww!
http://news.com.com/2100-1040-933245.html
|
(top) |
Yeah, I knew the Brits were squeamish about violent video games and stuff (remember what they did to Carmageddon? "You're running over... uh, zombies! Yeah, that's right!")... but I must admit I'd be a bit shaken too if they were playing this Xbox ad here:
The ad begins with a newborn child flying through a window before aging decades in seconds--then crashing and screaming into a grave as an elderly man. It was designed to illustrate the phrase: "Life is short. Play more."
Of course, what makes me shudder isn't even so much the content as the exhortation to take the best advantage of our limited time on Earth, with all the things we have here to do and see, by... uh, playing more video games.
I have friends who have lost years of their lives to MMORPGs and MUCKs and the like. They don't even consider those years "lost", either-- and while I'm not about to go pushing my values on these guys, it seems unbearably tragic to me that the headlong rush toward everybody being perpetually plugged into virtual-reality environments with head cables, with food and drink piped in, growing bulbous and hairy and losing any lingering interest in interacting with real people or accomplishing anything of material merit, is being embraced with such gusto.
Good job, Microsoft. Let's encourage it even more, hmm?
|
| Wednesday, June 5, 2002 |
01:32 - Propaganda... or advertising?
http://www.penny-arcade.com/
|
(top) |
The authors of Penny Arcade have an entertaining and right-on-the-money take on those "US Army" video games that are out right now and being lambasted for propagandizing to impressionable youngsters who might (gasp) be brainwashed into joining the military.
Give it a read. I particularly like Safety Monkey's description of the "Anti-Fuckface" intelligence built into the game. Sounds like genius to me...
|
|
18:28 - Well, it would have worked last time...
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/06/05/israel.arafat.compound/index.html
|
(top) |
Arafat seems to be a microcosm (in time and space) of Saddam.
Both commit attacks against their neighbors and exploit their own people in doing so. So the military (the US in the one case, the IDF in the other) goes in, cleans house, eliminates the immediate threat (which is in fact neutralized while the action is taking place), and comes this close to taking him out of the picture entirely.
But then the military bows to international pressure, and backs down... and in a very short time, the dictator in question is back to his old tricks.
In Saddam's case, we took a bath under world opinion because we didn't actually kill Saddam-- instead we tried to get the Iraqi people to rise up without our assistance and overthrow him themselves. This was done as a condition of our coalition with the Saudis, who insisted that we not target Saddam directly. (More fools we.) Naturally, the Iraqi people went howling into battle, but we couldn't lift a finger to help them-- so Saddam put down the uprising with extreme force, and now the US is seen as a bunch of vile betrayers by the Iraqi people. Shows what we get for trying to be multilateral.
Now, after Arafat has been beseiged by the IDF in Ramallah for a period (during which his terrorist infrastructure was disrupted fairly successfully, to the extent that there was relative peace while he was held incommunicado)-- they let him go, bowing to international opinion condemning Israel's vicious and brutal acts of self-defense. And he bought his way out of the siege with some promises and some sellings-out of key figures in the movement (which Europe still can't quite figure out what to do with or what kind of gloves to wear when touching them, after volunteering happily to give the poor dears shelter from the big nasty tanks), and now-- with as much obvious cause-and-effect as turning a light switch back on-- we're back to the suicide bombings.
This one's bad, too. An innovative new idea: drive a car full of bombs up alongside a bus on a freeway, and flick your Bic. That's thirteen people splattered into the breakdown lane and a flaming bus hulk careening into the distance. Not a bad deal for the gas money, eh?
Oh, of course, Arafat condemns it. But the Taliban condemned the 9/11 attacks too, remember that? I'm beginning to hate that word. "The U.N. condemned today's actions..." Yeah, like it means they did anything but sat around and frowned at each other and nodded and muttered about how much it sucks. Everybody's condemning things. Everybody feels it's necessary to go on record saying how terrible it is that someone died or that someone rolled tanks or that someone was brusquely searched for dynamite belts. But when Arafat does it, it makes it sound even more vague and offhand and "Yeah, yeah, leave me alone"-- because it means nothing. It's just another required step, another element of the formula that scripts any one of these attacks and retaliations. Next will come Israeli action to disrupt the terrorist infrastructure, followed by UN condemnation of the brutal and entirely unprovoked actions of the IDF and that warmonger Sharon. Then comes extreme pissed-off-ness on the part of bloggers who want to see the whole thing end for once. As in, making Arafat dead. You want to break the cycle of violence? That's the way to do it.
Oh, and just to kick things up a notch needlessly: the only thing missing from conspiracy-theorists' and wide-eyed religious fanatics' scenarios in all the recent action has been ringing, historical-mythological names. Well, fear no more, for the End Times are surely upon us now: the attack took place in Megiddo, otherwise popularly known as Armageddon.
|
|