Pijane Zające

Future Essays A-Coming

2006-09-22T00:28:00.000-04:00

Currently, one of my courses requires me to write a short, bi-weekly essay on race and religion (which my profs apparently believe to mean Caucasian-African-American relations and [protestant strains of]Christianity). I will post these essays here after the course reaches completion (and not before, as I fear being accused of plagiarizing [myself]).

Bleu Unmissed

2006-09-22T00:20:00.000-04:00

Apparently we no longer need to worry about the military firing gay translators like Bleu. CNN informs us: IF Al-Quaeda Wasn't in Iraq Before The War, They Are Now. And now they speak English. Gee, I wonder what pushed them to that extreme.

Only Fitting

2006-09-05T22:24:00.000-04:00

It is only fitting that the man who should choose to quote John Bolton in his first contribution to our Comparative Legal Systems class, finally got something right in class, when he explained the essence of Hobbesian political theory. Most likely, this is because he ascribes to it.

Lady Driver (Well, Pilot)

2006-08-18T12:57:00.000-04:00

How does one confuse a NATO base with a civilian airport? I am sick of hearing that it was due to her lack of knowledge of English and her nervousness. I can't imagine that a military installation and a giant field of concrete peppered with Boeing 747's look very much alike, no matter much she was pushing the altitude capabilities of her civilian aircraft.

Testing 1, 2

2006-08-14T20:32:00.000-04:00

Is this really what we have been reduced to? Moreover, what does this make Iraq in that case? As we all know, Al-Qaida and WMD's had nothing to do with it. And the Iranians were helping American soldiers who were operated in Afghanistan. However, that aside, this makes Olmert's weak overtures to the Palestinians even more disingenuous.
I am equally disgusted with an article which appeared in Sign and Sight. It claims that the world cares not when Muslims kill Muslims, or for that matter when anyone other than Israelis kill Muslims. I beg to differ. This article specifically refers to Iraq, Dafur and Chechnya. Perhaps Monsieur Glucksmann failed to notice a few minor details.
I would compare Iraq with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict for one fleeting moment. It is not that the world does not care that Muslims are being killed (although granted, America seems to be the mandatory exception to this rule). Rather, I believe it is that the world has become de-sensitised to these deaths. Each additional death does little to add to the horrors of the scores of deaths that preceded it. I would argue that it is clear that at least in theory, the world wants both of these conflicts resolved.
As for Chechnya, I remember sitting in high school, hearing and reading about the world's outcries. Unfortunately, Clinton was too busy bombing the Balkans to create any moral high ground from which to dictate anything to the Russians. (Don't get me wrong--I like Clinton. However, no matter how many times this strategy is tried, it never produces the results desired.)
Lastly, we have Dafur. I agree: what happened, what is still happening, in Sudan is horrific. I found bitter irony in the fact that in one breath the World's states said, "never again", and in the next, refused to aid those who needed it most. However, I would postulate that Europe and the US had less influence over the Sudanese government than America has over Israel. In other words, the current crisis in Lebanon is all the more deplorable because (a) the Israelis attacked a state which had not attacked it, (b) the US had the requisite influence over the Israelis to bring an earlier end to the hostilities and (c) for all its bragging about it capability to avoid civilian casualties, the vast majority of the dead on the Lebanese side were civilians. Israel attacked a country which was just rebuilding itself. So, perhaps it is not so that "some Muslim corpses are light as a feather, and others weigh tonnes", Monsieur Gluckmann.

Open Your Eyes

2006-08-14T12:58:00.000-04:00

The Polish Government, and for that matter the Polish public's reaction to this exhibit depresses me. To protest the inclusion of materials on the forced transfer of scores of Germans from what is now western Poland is not to minimize the suffering of those peoples whose members were displaced en masse, but rather goes to illustrate that often victims, when given the upper hand, do not always act with magnanimity. I feel that rather this is an especially important reminder that victor's justice is often unjust. Yes, Poland was a victim of WWII and the Cold War. However, it should not forget that even its past is not morally clean.

Flip-Flopping

2006-08-10T22:45:00.000-04:00

Have I mentioned how much I love the Daily Show?
And while I am at it, here are some birth pangs, free of charge.

Hearts, Minds and Tact Aside

2006-08-10T13:42:00.000-04:00

Shrub, with his usual flare and pizazz, has stated that the foiled plot to use liquid explosives on planes traveling from the UK to the US was a "stark reminder" that the US was still at war (to emphasise American's military activity since 2001 just in case it had somehow evaded your attention, I suppose) with "Islamic Fascists". Ah, yes. Brilliant. The man has managed once again not only to offend, but also to display his ignorance of the English language. One cannot be both an Islamist and a fascist. Why not, you ask? Precisely because fascism is grounded in ultra-nationalism. Islamists, by definition, seek unity among adherents of Islam, regardless of what nationality those Muslims may be. Moreover, might he not have given his speech writing crew the easy task of embarking on a search for a better choice of words? Then again, these are also the people who came up with the phrase "terrorist-state"ignoring the fact that terrorist acts, by definition, can only be carried out by non-state actors. Clearly, I expect too much.

Mr Galloway Presents

2006-08-09T07:35:00.000-04:00

While watching this clip that K had sent to me, it dawned on me why the American public is so willing to support Israel. While it is easy enough to rattle off factors, such as relatively low Arab immigration, a strong Jewish lobby, etc, I could not help but feel as though I were missing the most basic piece of that puzzle. Now I realise the exceedingly obvious fact that I had suppressed. The American public possesses no long term memory. The short term memory that it does have does not exceed four weeks in most cases. In other words, the Americans have ungracefully taken this attack by Israel out of context.
I have also been marveling at the skill and deftness of Israeli propaganda, both at home an abroad. The death of each soldier is emphasised and dutifully mourned by Israeli media. Such tactics have a strong effect on the national psyche, allowing Israelis to feel that they are indeed the victims of this conflict. Moreover, Israel has managed to keep at least one key proposal from the headlines. Prior to the bombing of Qana, the Lebanese government floated a proposal which would have included such measures as sending Lebanese troops to the south to prevent a vacuum from being created by the withdraw of Israeli troops and *gasp* the release of the two Israeli soldiers whose capture provided the Israeli government with the excuse it needed to launch its attack in the first place.

Come to think of it, this clip of Mr Galloway reminds me of this clip from British CNN.

Cheney: An Unwitting Prophet?

2006-08-08T10:06:00.000-04:00

I am sure that no one has forgotten about the education Cheney bestowed on us on the dangers of quail hunting. We were not only amused that he had confused his human hunting buddy for a quail, but also that Cheney was hunting cage raised quails, whose wings had been clipped so as to prevent them from flying too high.
Perhaps, just perhaps, Cheney was in fact prophesying Israel's bombing of Lebanon. Now there is a conspiracy theory for you (and just think, even the Right Wing would like it, as it suggests that that malevolent God figure they all seem to believe in sends signs through Cheney's bizarre behaviour).

War does not decide who was right, war decides who is left.--Bertrand Russell

WV Can Do A Lot to Crush One's Very Soul

2006-08-07T17:03:00.000-04:00

Perhaps I have overreacted, but I doubt it. On Thursday, as per my boss' brilliant instruction, I found myself driving him down to WV at 6 am. Driving, I might add, a rental car. This might seem like a small and somewhat insignificant detail, until you realise that in this Grand Ol' Land I am too young to legally drive a rental car unless extra insurance is obtained to over said rental car. Whether it had been obtained is a precious fact which has escaped my grasp. Most likely I should merely be thankful that it was not his SUV which I was driving into WV. It was painful enough to enter a state which screams "uneducated, simple bigots live here" with the power of a thousand banshees without having to endure swallowing my concerns about the very existence of SUV's on well-paved roads. I should have also been grateful, I suppose, that I was no longer the captive audience of the taxi driver who ushered me into my place of business at that ungodly hour. While I found the adventure surrounding his root canal to be not at all interesting (and, therefore, theoretically easy enough to ignore), his constant imitation of a dentist's drill was more than capable of disturbing my not all together peaceful train of thought.
Moreover, I was not even afforded a slow introduction to WV via Wheeling. No, no. I had to plunge straight into the one story countryside, where fonts composed of logs seemed to be a sure way of attracting large-ish customers. Let's all head down to Wood's! Yee-ha!
The courtroom hadn't been changed since the early 1930's (according to the Honourable Justice presiding over the proceedings) and my boss thought it would be good fun to listen to Rush Limbaugh on the ride home while he napped. Needless to say, I was quite spent by the time that I returned to my current place of residence, shallow pitt though it is.
And so, the greater part of my time between then and now was spent on the delicate task of duct-taping what remained of my fragile psyche into a shell of its former self. With any luck, I will resume pontificating on matters I would be better off not pontificating on later today.
Oh, and note to self: Avoid jury loos if at all possible.

Letter from Nader

2006-08-01T07:50:00.000-04:00

Enjoy.

Syria's Ambassador

2006-07-28T07:00:00.000-04:00

I will purge myself of silliness forthwith. Here is the Ambassador's blog. Also, a few days ago, North Korea called Condor a political twit (actually a political imbecile, but there is just something about the word "twit" which strike my fancy in this case). Sometime being a rouge state gives you the power to call the kettle black.

That said, this article disturbs me somewhat (if the article doesn't immediately come up, try here). It is neither shocking nor novel. Yes, yes, yes. I am well aware that the US says that it does not negotiate with terrorists. This is all well and good. However, last I checked (see political twit article), the US was not above talking with "rouge" states. In fact, the US seems pretty keen to speak with the North Korean, great irony though this is. This fact alone makes me believe that in theory they are aware of the concept of diplomacy. So why is it that the US, which has on numerous occasions consistently stated that Syria (and Iran for that matter, but I don't believe they have an ambassador in Washington) has influence over Hezbollah, has neglected to call their local Syrian Ambassador?
Granted, it is as the Ambassador says. It is not as if he could call up Hezbollah and make them stop their actions. Condor's statement regarding Syria's lack of action does not satisfy me in the slightest. I should think that the US is well aware of its lack of influence over Hezbollah, and its sizable influence over Israel. I allow me to explain in baby steps, as perhaps this concept is more difficult to grasp than I realise. The US says that it wants a sustainable peace, but asserts that certain requirements must be met before a ceasefire can be put in place (despite European pressure to force an immediate ceasefire). From what I recall, the US wants Hezbollah to, among other things, withdraw 20km from the border. It is not going to be able to secure this requirement through unilateral action. If the US believes that the Syrians have influence over Hezbollah, perhaps contacting their Ambassador, in the hopes that lines of communication can at least be created, would not be a bad idea. One of two things would be likely to occur, neither of which would be detrimental to US, or for that matter, Israeli interests. The US could (1) realise that Syria's influence over Hezbollah has significantly declined and that it does not have the power to direct Hezbollah to do anything. The Mad Puppet-Master's strings may not actually be as clean and neat as they once were. Of course, it would pose the problem of exposing the fact that American intelligence is not as fool proof as Shrub's administration would have you believe. Nevertheless, I don't think that this would shock the world in any way after the 9/11 and Iraq intelligence scandals. Alternatively (2) the US might actually try to secure its stated prerequisites for a ceasefire, thereby making it seem as if they are actually attempting to stop hostilities in the region, rather than trying to buy Israel more time. Frankly, while I don't think that Shrub's regime deserves it, they could do with some PR magic. Of course, if I had my way, the US would force the Israelis into an immediate ceasefire, and cease aid and weapons shipments (at the VERY LEAST until the ceasefire were secured). Again, not because I am pro-Hezbollah. I most certainly am not. However, I struggle with this entity called a "conscience". It would seem that it is dead set against allowed for the orchestrated murder of innocent, civilian lives. Go figure.

And Now for Something Completely Different

2006-07-27T19:14:00.000-04:00

Classical breakdancing (korean-style), anyone?

Zbig

2006-07-27T10:08:00.000-04:00

I wish that they would at least listen to what a former National Security Advisor had to say.

Discord May Have Been Better

2006-07-27T06:50:00.000-04:00

Yesterday America pushed through statements at the international crisis meeting that any peace would have to be a lasting peace. Afterwards, Europeans desperately tried to make it appear as if progress had been made. However, during their interviews, their voices were strained as they attempted to make positive remarks as to what the results of this meeting were going to be. The Fins sounded especially pained.
And so, today, the Israelis have informed us that the world supports their offensive, or at least has authorised it. Furthermore, the pamphlets have served their purpose, we are informed. Civilians have left southern Lebanon (as they had ample time to do so) and now all who remain in the region are Hezbollah members or their supporters. Hence, they are terrorists and their lives hold no value. Especially when one compares them to Israeli lives. Never mind that among those who remain are those who are too poor/ sick/ wounded/ scared/ Unifil; innocent people who could not abandon their homes, or what is left of them, are trapped. We will comfortably ignore the fact that aid was not able to successfully reach these people, and perhaps help them to escape north, where they would join their countrymen and women in overcrowded buildings and streets. No matter that the constant barrage of bombings induced fears that one could be killed when attempting to flee the south. Moreover, 10-14 days was clearly a low estimate, given so as not to enrage the world too much. After all, one had to wait for the US to provide one with the time window one sought. The Israelis now "reckon" fighting will continue for several weeks.
The US has led us from a world where states and their peoples watched from afar as other peoples, in far distant lands, killed themselves. Now we have states issuing words which were so pliable, as to allow those breaking international law to say that they have the international communities support. Granted, even before the Shrub administration, states were selling arms to militias and authoritarian regimes. Nevertheless, I don't recall those states eagerly announcing that the countless deaths which resulted from their arms sales were necessary to ensure peace. The World has come far indeed.

Update: European states have rejected the Israeli interpretation of statements made in Rome.

Fitting

2006-07-26T17:23:00.000-04:00

Someone from the FDA came here searching for Richard Clarke. I can definatly see how Clarke and drugs would have something in common. Crack. I think crack would be the drug that I would associate with him.

Cartoons Back in the News

2006-07-26T12:36:00.000-04:00

Despite what the Israelis may say, I don't believe that this cartoon can be compared to those depicting Mohammed as a terrorist (and here it should be noted that the Norwegian newspaper in question did not publish the cartoons of Mohammed). This is an attack on a public person, not an entire religion. Therefore, regardless of whether I agree with the cartoon or not, I don't believe that this should cartoon should be censored. As it happens, one of my biggest problems with Israel is that it engages in the same type of behaviour that the Nazis engaged against the Jewish peoples of Europe.

Sheer Poetry

2006-07-26T09:32:00.001-04:00

Apparently the Iraqi PM wasn't prepared to swallow his pride and agree with Shrub's policy on the Israeli-Lebanese War. Vulgarly put, it would seem he ripped Shrub a new one (well, to the extent that he could reasonably do so). Congress, rather than acting nobly, reacted in what can by now be called its traditional reactionary fashion. Expressions of differences of opinion? Rubbish, we don't allow that kind of nonsense on this side of the pond.

All Signs Point to Yes

2006-07-26T07:34:00.000-04:00

Despite Israeli statements to the contrary, it appears that the Israeli military had targeted a Unifil building. Kofi Annan's reaction was unusually brisk, and with good reason--namely the UN had contacted the Israeli military, asking them to stop bombing the UN post. Now there is no question that the Israelis simply do not want to see a new UN mission in southern Lebanon. Surely there was a more delicate way of communicating this. Even if one believes the Israelis, the logical conclusions that one can reach from their statement are troubling. To put it bluntly, the Israelis would have shown their utter inability to target sites with the degree of precision that they have been claiming they are capable of.

Update: The Australians got the message, loud and clear.

Made You Look Away

2006-07-25T09:28:00.000-04:00

With the world's attention squarely on Lebanon, it would appear that Israel is once again (remember Jenin?) feels comfortable using Palestinians as human shields in Gaza. This time, the Israelis made use of two children in its group of human shields. And Israelis are supposed to be the victims?

Mother Jones Knows Best

2006-07-25T09:21:00.000-04:00

I deeply urge all of you to read this article published by Mother Jones which outlines all of the fallacies and self-serving banter contained in the resolutions passed by the US House of Representative and the Senate. It is incredibly troubling that were passed with near unanimity, especially when one looks at the consequences of American foreign policy.

Constructive Criticism

2006-07-24T23:16:00.000-04:00

Recently, someone provided me with a bit of constructive criticism. I was very happy to receive some. In this case, I was told that I link to the BBC too often. Therefore, I will link to a variety of different sources from now on (a number of which, like DW, do their own spread of what various newspapers are saying--again, Poland seems rather keen on embarrassing itself, while the Guardian does us proud), reflecting the wide variety of internet media that I read. I have already gotten my token BBC link out of the way (what can I say, old habits die hard). And so, without further ado...
How can Condi (who I think I will start referring to as Condor, for her tendency to feed on the dead, and yet ability to also prey on the living) claim to support the Lebanese government, while simultaneously stating that, as prerequisites for a ceasefire, the two Israeli soldiers must be released and Hezbollah must withdraw from the border. This could, in theory, not be quite so offensive if the Israelis were to have similar requirements placed upon them, ie if Condor had said to them, "if you would like to resolve this conflict, perhaps you need to stop bombing and invading a sovereign country so that peacekeepers and aid workers might freely move about Lebanon". But clearly, with the situation at hand, neither of these prerequisites, and here I refer to those put forth by Condor and those sarcastically suggested by me, are realistic. They are unrealistic, not least for the fact that verifying that Hezbolllah had withdrawn 20 km from the border would be nigh on impossible, especially considering that Israel has not ceased hostilities. Moreover, somehow I doubt that Hezbollah is going to heed Jan Egeland's pleas for them to stop cowardly hiding amongst the Lebanese population. After all, this has been too successful of a strategy for them, resulting in few of its members' deaths. This has been yet another episode of how not to solve a conflict, US-style. Stayed tuned for another episode, same bat time, same bat region.
The author of this charming little article must have a good sense of humour, or had, perhaps, forgotten to proof his article to see if it flowed properly (and of this latter fault I am guilty of myself--I haven't the energy to do more than a review of the news after having worked well over 20 hours in the last two days alone). How else can one explain one paragraph explaining Israeli frustration at the international media's refusal to portray the Israelis as the victims, while in the next paragraph, the author chose to state that the Israelis have killed over 365 persons, the majority of whom were civilians? Americans can say what they want about Aljazeera (after all, criticism of an Arab news channel doesn't amount to aiding the enemy), but at least their articles are consistent.
Unsurprisingly, Americans have taken a crude view of the war. Most have said that their greatest fear arising from the conflict are rising gas prices. At least, unlike the friendly staff at FOX news, NY taxi drivers are cognisant of the fact that this is incredibly self-centred and that it dismisses the horrors of these recent events. I had also been wondering how long it would take this to happen ("this" being how long it would take for Arab Americans and Jewish Americans to internalise the conflict and fight amongst themselves). However, I commend them on their restraint, seemingly having limited themselves to criticising each other, rather than resorting to name-calling or violence.

Dean

2006-07-24T10:41:00.000-04:00

Once again, the following is courtesy of K (and if you are really ambitious, here is another article on the matter):

The full extent and irreversibility of the damage to our country wrought by the Bush administration will likely not be known until well after George Bush finally disappears from our political life. But understanding the dynamics and impulses of the movement which have enabled these abuses is a critically important task, and that is the project undertaken by John Dean’s new best-selling book, Conservatives Without Conscience (selected excerpt is here). Fortuitously for Dean, this examination of what has become the so-called "conservative" movement (composed of Bush followers, neoconservatives and hard-core religious conservatives) comes at the perfect time.
With 2 1/2 years still left for this administration, the true radicalism of the administration and its followers has become unavoidably, depressingly clear, and it is equally clear that this movement has not reached anywhere near the peak of its extremism. Dean’s central thesis explains why that is so.
Dean contends, and amply documents, that the "conservative" movement has become, at its core, an authoritarian movement composed of those with a psychological and emotional need to follow a strong authority figure which provides them a sense of moral clarity and a feeling of individual power, the absence of which creates fear and insecurity in the individuals who crave it. By definition, its followers’ devotion to authority and the movement’s own power is supreme, thereby overriding the consciences of its individual members and removing any intellectual and moral limits on what will be justified in defense of their movement.Dean relies on substantial social science data to illustrate the personality type that seeks out authoritarian movements. But his case is made much more persuasively by what one can visibly see unfolding before one’s own eyes.
As Iraq collapses into all-out civil war and new, tragic levels of violence, Bush supporters continue to insist that things are going well there and our invasion was a success. As the Middle East spirals into all-out regional war, Bush supporters insist that this repulsive violence is actually good for the region — wars are encouraging "birth pangs" on the road to progress, as the Secretary of State put it yesterday — and they are now actively involving the U.S. in this escalated conflict, even while Iraq rapidly falls apart.
And there is seemingly no limit — literally — on the willingness, even eagerness, of Bush supporters to defend and justify even the most morally repugnant abuses — from constantly expanding spying on American citizens, to a President who claims and aggressively exercises the "right" to break the law, to torturing suspects, imprisoning journalists, and turning the United States into the most feared and hated country on the planet.
And as radical as the administration has become, it is clear that the administration has not even come close to reaching the level of extremism which would be necessary for its supporters to object — if such a limit exists at all. If anything, on those exceedingly few occasions over six years when his followers have dissented from the Presidents’s decisions — illegal immigration, Harriet Miers, the Dubai port deal – it has been not because the administration was too radical, extremist, militaristic and uncompromising — but insufficiently so.
Bush supporters want more spying, much more aggressive actions against investigative journalists and even domestic political opposition, more death and violence brought to the Middle East, more wars, and still fewer restraints on the President’s powers, to the extent there are any real limits left. To them, the Bush administration has not been nearly as extremist and aggressive as it ought to be in dealing with the Enemies. And that is to say nothing of the measures that would be urged, and almost certainly imposed, in the event of another terrorist attack on U.S. soil or in the increasingly likely event that our limited war in Iraq expands into the Epic War of Civilizations which so many of them crave.
Ultimately, as Dean convincingly demonstrates, the characteristic which defines the Bush movement, the glue which binds it together and enables and fuels all of the abuses, is the vicious, limitless methods used to attack and demonize the "Enemy," which encompasses anyone — foreign or domestic — threatening to their movement. What defines and motivates this movement are not any political ideas or strategic objectives, but instead, it is the bloodthirsty, ritualistic attacks on the Enemy de jour — the Terrorist, the Communist, the Illegal Immigrant, the Secularist, and most of all, the "Liberal."
What excites, enlivens, and drives Bush followers is the identification of the Enemy followed by swarming, rabid attacks on it. It is a movement that defines itself not by identifiable ideas but by that which it is not. Its foreign policy objectives are identifiable by one overriding goal — destroy and kill the Enemy, potential or suspected enemies, and everyone nearby. And it increasingly views its domestic goals through the same lens. It is a movement in a permanent state of war, which views all matters, foreign and domestic, only in terms of this permanent war.
Supreme Court justices who rule against the President on national security matters are tyrants, traitors and pro-terrorist. Journalists who uncover legally dubious government conduct carried out in secret are criminals who should be imprisoned for life or hanged. Virtually every political opponent of the administration’s of any significance — Howard Dean, Al Gore, John Kerry, the Clintons — is relentlessly branded as a liar, mentally unstable, corrupt, seditious, and sympathetic to the Enemy.
And even those who devoted much of their adult lives to military service to their country (often in ways far more courageous and impressive than most Bush supporters), or even those who have been longtime Republicans and conservatives, have their characters relentlessly smeared and motives and integrity impugned as soon as they criticize the administration in any way that could embarrass the President — Richard Clarke, Paul O’Neill, the war critic Generals, Joe Wilson, Scott Ritter, Wesley Clark, John Murtha, John Paul Stevens, and on and on and on.
It is a movement devoted to the destruction of its enemies wherever they might be found. And it finds new ones, in every corner and seemingly on a daily basis, because it must. That is the food which sustains it.
* * * * *In many ways, John Dean is the ideal person to examine this dynamic because he has seen and experienced both sides of it up close and personal. Attracted to the political conservatism of Barry Goldwater, Dean joined the Nixon administration and, at the age of 32, became Nixon’s aggressive White House counsel, deeply involved in helping to perpetrate many of the Watergate abuses. Morton Halperin, who was a standing member of Nixon’s "enemy list," claimed in an Op-Ed in Friday’s Los Angeles Times that Dean authored a 1971 memo setting forth a plan to "use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies."
But in 1973, Dean became the first high-level Nixon official to turn against the administration, famously testifying before the Senate Watergate Committee that the President (as well as Dean himself) was personally involved in the Watergate cover-up. As a result of his refusal to copy the example of blindly loyal authoritarian followers such as G. Gordon Liddy and Charles Colson — who lied and covered-up for their leader — Dean became one of the most hated enemies of Nixon followers, a hatred which, he later discovered, would make him the target of the right-wing authoritarian tactics which he previously wielded against Nixon’s enemies.
In 1991, as Dean recounts at length, he learned that 60 Minutes and Time Magazine were preparing to feature a new book, entitled Silent Coup, which claimed that Dean himself was the one who ordered the Watergate break-in. The book alleged that Dean’s motive was that his wife, Maureen, had a connection to a Washington, DC call-girl operation and thus had knowledge of various sex scandals involving Democrats, and Dean sought to obtain documentation to use against them.
The very idea that Dean himself had ordered the Watergate break-in because of his wife’s connection to a call-girl service, and that these secrets were somehow kept for 20 years, was completely absurd on its face. And once Dean vehemently denied these allegations, both 60 Minutes and Time investigated the claims and both decided not to run the story — a noble decision which, in Time’s case, led to the loss of the $50,000 it had paid for the rights to run an excerpt of the book.
But using right-wing smear techniques which, back then, were still new, but which are now a staple of the "conservative" movement, these patently false allegations against Dean were aggressively promoted by right-wing ideologues and then accepted and given great attention by the mainstream media. The book’s publishers enlisted both right-wing follower G. Gordon Liddy and by-then-born-again Christian right activist Charles Colson — both of whom still hated Dean for his blasphemy in testifying truthfully against the President — to promote the book and push its allegations against Dean.
More and more right-wing groups and personalities jumped on board this smear campaign, until it received full-fledged support from mainstream right-wing media personalities. That, in turn, induced many mainstream media programs — from Good Morning America to CNN’s Larry King Live — to invite the authors on to discuss the book. Out of this now all-too-familiar process, this defamatory book ended up on the New York Times’ Best Seller List. As Dean recounts:
Despite most of the news media’s fitting dismissal of Silent Coup’s baseless claims, the protracted litigation provided time for the book to gather a following, including an almost cultlike collection of highprofile right-wingers. Among them, for example, is Monica Crowley, a former aide to Richard Nixon after his presidency, and now a conservative personality on MSNBC, cohosting Connected: Coast to Coast with Ron Reagan. Other prominent media-based conservatives who have joined the glee club are James Rosen and Brit Hume of Fox News. How these seemingly intelligent people embraced this false account mystified me, and I wanted to know. . . .
As for Colson, his reason for promotion of Silent Coup remained a complete mystery for me, as did the motives of people like Monica Crowley, James Rosen, Brit Hume, and all the other hard-core conservatives who embraced this spurious history and made it a best seller. The only thing I could see that these people had in common was their conservatism.
That is how the "conservative" movement works to this day, although its methods have become even more efficient and less scrupulous. Petty allegations and character attacks begin percolating in the smear sewers of the right wing — through insinuations by talk-radio dirt-mongerers like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, speculation by Matt Drudge, smear campaigns by shadowy groups and organizations, and now by attention-desperate and glory-seeking right-wing blogs. From there, the attacks are reported by the right-wing media and then fed into the mainstream media.
A lynch mob is created which seeks not the truth of what happened, but the destruction of the movement’s enemies. "Conservative" rank-and-file, confining themselves to an echo chamber, embrace the allegations instinctively, because they are made by the movement’s defenders against the movement’s enemies. And their allegiance to their movement and a desire to destroy their opponents overrides any concern for proportionality or truth. As Dean documents, it is what the contemporary, so-called "conservative" movement feeds on more than anything else — a limitless and bloodthirsty attack on the character of its opponents and enemies.
* * * * *
Dean advances and then amply documents (both with his own analysis and social science data, the former being far more persuasive than the latter) what I consider to be the book’s two central points:
First, that what is currently described as the "conservative movement" bears virtually no resemblance to Goldwater’s conservatism, and has nothing to do with restraining government power or preserving historical values. Instead, it has transformed into an authoritarian movement which largely attracts personality types characterized by a desire and need to submit to and follow authority.
Second, because those who submit to authority necessarily relinquish their own conscience (in favor of serving the conscience of their leader and/or their movement), those who are part of this movement are capable of acts which a healthy and normal conscience ought to preclude. They can use torture, break laws, wage unnecessary wars based on false pretenses, and attempt to destroy the reputation of plainly patriotic and honest Americans — provided that they are convinced that doing so advances the interests of the authority they serve and the movement of which they are a part.
The central premise of Dean’s argument is that the current "conservative" movement shares none of the core principles of the political conservatism which attracted Dean to its movement — those espoused by Dean’s longtime friend, Barry Goldwater (whose 1960 book, The Conscience of a Conservative, is the source for Dean’s title). That the Bush movement bears no resemblance to traditional conservatism is a view shared by scores of the country’s most prominent conservatives, such as Pat Buchanan and increasingly George Will. The Father of Modern Conservatism, Bill Buckely, just yesterday pronounced that Bush’s "singular problem" is "the absence of effective conservative ideology." And before his death, Barry Goldwater himself frequently accused the religious right of assaulting core conservative principles.
Relatedly, Dean documents that the "conservative" movement is composed of various factions who actually share very little in common in the way of political beliefs and could not come close to agreeing on a core set of political principles and ideals which define their movement. In the absence of a set of core, shared beliefs, what, then, binds them and maintains their allegiance to this political movement?
The answer Dean provides is the shared hatred of common enemies. And their collective attacks on those enemies have become the consevative movement’s defining attribute. And that is sufficient to maintain allegiance because, argues Dean, what Bush followers crave more than anything else is submission to a powerful authority as a means of alleviating their fears of ambiguity, uncertainty and complexity — the same attributes which are common to all followers of authoritarian movements on both the right and the left:
Given the rather distinct beliefs of the various conservative factions, which have only grown more complex with time, how have conservatives succeeded in coalescing as a political force? The simple answer is through the power of negative thinking, and specifically, the ability to find common enemies. . . .
Important conservative opinion journals, like the National Review and Human Events, see the world as bipolar: conservative versus liberal. Right-wing talk radio could not survive without its endless bloviating about the horrors of liberalism. Trashing liberals is nothing short of a cottage industry for conservative authors. . . .
The exaggerated hostility also apparently satisfies a psychological need for antagonism toward the “out group,” reinforces the self-esteem of the conservative base, and increases solidarity within the ranks.
The heart of [New York University Professor John] Jost and his collaborators’ findings was that people become or remain political conservatives because they have a “heightened psychological need to manage uncertainty and threat.” More specifically, the study established that the various psychological factors associated with political conservatives included (and here I am paraphrasing) fear, intolerance of ambiguity, need for certainty or structure in life, overreaction to threats, and a disposition to dominate others.
This data was collected from conservatives willing to explain their beliefs and have their related psychological dynamics studied through various objective testing techniques. These characteristics, Dr. Jost said, typically cannot be ascribed to liberals.
A healthy skepticism is warranted with regard to the ability of social science data to reveal truths about political movements. But ultimately, the ability of that data to persuade is dependent upon the extent to which it comports with one’s own observations. And when Dean cites and applies the conclusions of the famous study by Stanley Milgram, in which subject participants administered what seemed to be excruciatingly painful electric shock because they were instructed by authority figures in white coats to do so, its applicability to the Bush movement becomes self-evident:
When "a person acting under authority performs actions that seem to violate his standards of conscience, it would not be true to say that he loses his moral sense," Milgram concluded. Rather, that person simply places his moral views aside. His "moral concern shifts to a consideration of how well he is living up to the expectations of the authority figure."
The Bush administration’s ability to engage in extraordinary and radical behavior has not occurred in a vacuum. The administration is radical and can act seemingly without limits because its supporters and followers are radical and limitless in their allegiance to its abuses. Understanding the disturbing and dangerous human dynamic which fuels that movement is critical to understanding the movement itself, and ultimately, to defeating it. Dean’s book is a uniquely valuable tool for understanding what the so-called "conservative" movement has become.

Difficult

2006-07-24T06:51:00.000-04:00

I try to be proud of my nationality. Often, it is difficult, and I look upon is as much of a joke. The greater majority of my country's intelligentsia, and here I refer to those who managed to survive WWII, were killed off by the Russians. Moreover, buffoons have this nagging tendency to outbreed all others. Nevertheless, I try to dismiss the stereotypes which have been forged over the last 50 years in Europe, and over the whole of American history.
Thus, I find it all the more shameful when I read that the Ducks insist on perpetuating these stereotypes with the all grace and reactionary ideals of Shrub. Give me something to work with. Throw me a bloody bone. Please.

Peacekeeping

2006-07-24T06:17:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, I had read several articles, all of which repeated more or less the same thing. Israel would agree to a NATO or EU peacekeeping force, so long as that force were robust. I had declined to write anything on that subject, thinking that perhaps this was a misprint, or that something more would happen while I slept, secure that no Israeli bombs would be dropping on my head. Instead, I satisfied myself with reading clips from translations of Hebrew and Arabic newspapers published in Israel. Mmmm, propaganda. Great fun, that.
But apparently, this morning's news is repeating the same thing. I realise that Unifil does not meet the definition of robust, but has the Israeli government completely dismissed the idea of a new UN force? Also, notice that the Israelis specifically said that they would be willing to accept European soldiers in southern Lebanon. So much for the offers non-European countries had made to send their own troops to held mediate the conflict. Moreover, I wonder whether the Israeli definition of Europe includes Turkey, or whether "European" was merely a euphemism for non-Muslim.
Condi Rice also appears to be engaging in a new level of willful blindness. It would seem that she believes that only Hezbollah has launched Lebanon and the region into war. Amnesia is nice when you want to feel good about your state and its allies, but perhaps one should not engage in peacekeeping missions when on only that knowledge which has not been suppressed. This is especially true when the person on the peacekeeping mission says that, yes, while in theory a ceasefire could be a good thing, we are not going to play that game unless we have what we want. Eh, hundreds more might die in the meantime, but no matter. Lady, even Israel has admitted that it will not be able to accomplish all its goals through brute military strength. I am forced to work for the assumption that Condi is trying to secure for Israel the additional ten days it says it needs for its military strikes. This is a truly frightening proposition. I had always believed that part of the reason why mediation through a third party(ies) was effective, at least in theory, was that it brought a relatively unbiased voice and level head to the table. I realise that Israel is the largest recipient of US aid, but perhaps the US would be wise to listen to some of its other allies. Especially if it is still allegedly seeking to win the hearts and minds of other peoples in the Middle East and to repair the further damage to its image caused by Shrub at the G8 summit. Just a thought.

Familiar

2006-07-23T23:09:00.000-04:00

The Israeli government seems to be paying these protestors just as much mind as the American government has paid to the opposition to the War on Iraq.

Just In Case You Forgot

2006-07-23T08:41:00.000-04:00

Torture in Iraq.
I suppose that the Americans, having failed to learn the lessons learned by the Soviets (namely that invading Afghanistan is never a good idea, and that there's more than meets the eye to setting up a puppet government, wanted to prove that they had the capacity to learn. And so, they have shown us what marvelous scholars of torture, Soviet style or otherwise, they are.

I Won't Say I Told You So

2006-07-23T07:52:00.000-04:00

I know that you are all perfectly capable of reading the news and connecting the dots. While I wholeheartedly agree with Jan Egeland that what has happened in Lebanon is no more and no less than a violation of humanitarian law, I am a little confused as to the way that the BBC reproduced his statements. Can it be that there has been a violation of that law merely on the grounds that the Israelis had leveled block after block of Lebanese cities? Would it have been okay had it just been every other block?! Weren't there violations of humanitarian law even before this incident took place?! Were the Israelis really successful in convincing the world that those civilians who died as a result of their bombs and raids were truly the ones at fault, as they had been warned by the Israelis of their impending attacks (oh, wait that's right--the Israelis clam that they can bomb the civilians because Hezbollah won't allow them to leave. Well if that's the case...)?!
But surely this must have tipped the scale for the Americans, right? No country with a conscience could support such actions, no? But what's this? According to the NY Times, the US has rushed its delivery of laser guided bombs to Israel. Apparently the culture of life doesn't extend to the armed forces OR foreign countries.
I am beginning to wonder what the life exchange rate is. Apparently two Israeli lives are worth more than 350 Lebanese lives. That's worse than the dollar to yen exchange rate.
Moreover, I find it curious that there has been little commentary on the fact that this is a violation of International Law. Without delving into the whole of this body of law, one can simply say that Israel attacked a state which had not attacked it. This in and of itself is a clear violation of International Law. I suppose that this clearly signals that Shrub has single-handedly destroyed this body of law which had been painstakingly and incrementally created since WWII.
I also find the theory that by selling weapons to the Saudi government, the US will deflect Arab government anger somewhat baffling.

Noam Chomsky's views can be found here.

No to Pre-Conflict Era Peace

2006-07-22T03:45:00.000-04:00

Setting aside Israel's half-assed attempt to alleviate itself of any blame for civilian deaths by air dropping pamphlets warning residents to evacuate southern Lebanon (I wonder if they mention when and how this might be possible), Condi has issued a statement, stating that while she seeks peace in the region, she does not wish for a return to the pre-conflict era. Peace, good. Pre-conflict (with these results, would that even be possible? wouldn't it be preferable if it were?), bad. WHAT?! Let's think about this.
Granted, the Lebanese army stands no chance against the Israelis. The Israelis have managed to hit one of their barracks and to invade their country. Nevertheless, the Lebanese army has not engaged Israel (although, since yesterday, they have issued statements that they will if Israeli forces cross into Lebanon--I suppose they are referring to something more than the current cross-border raids). The country is doing nothing more than begging for at least a ceasefire. For that matter, little has been heard from other Arab governments. I realise that diplomacy is a foreign concept to the White House, but what other prerequisites could the White House honestly want and believe it could secure before it chose to support peace?! Bulldozer funerals have already been held. Gee, I wonder where I have seen those before.
Moreover, US troops are everywhere in the world. The US government seems to be under the impression that their lives are worth a dime a dozen. So why does the US government find it so distasteful to send a handful of their "finest" as part of a peace-keeping mission (other than the US' obvious lack of recent training for such missions)? Surely it is not as the Pentagon has claimed. While it is true that the US has over stretched itself, the US would not have been required to send a large force for this mission. I am sure some of the army boys would have preferred to be sent to southern Lebanon. After all, Baghdad doesn't seem to be doing their health wonders. For love of Pee Wee Herman, even the Israelis would have liked to have seen an American presence (albeit one akin to that which was sent to Kosovo--great idea, that...). Frankly, I am not all that upset that American troops will not be sent there. I would be more keen to see the US fund the peace-keeping force as the US otherwise tends to do a rather poor job in performing such tasks (see US bombing of the Chinese embassy--let's stay on task, folks). This is only to be expected from a country which is too quick to dismiss diplomacy and equally quick to turn to violence.
It currently appears that not only are France and Turkey willing to send peace-keepers (but as of yet, not necessarily blue helmets), but so are India, Pakistan, Brazil and Germany. (It is truly interesting to think that Indian and Pakistani soldiers will be working side by side for the promotion of peace in the Middle East, but this is a topic for another day). Whatever force is sent, however, needs to be deployed now to prevent the further escalation of violence. The clearest indicator that this is on the horizon is Israel's decision to amass troops on its border with Lebanon.
Furthermore, while I am anti-Israeli, this does not in any way, shape or form mean that I support Hezbollah. I make this statement because few of the natives here are capable of grasping that concept. I care little how much face they will have to lose. They need to lay down their weapons. They still have the two Israeli soldiers as leverage. As non-sensical as it may seem, they need to take the moral high ground (yes, this sounds very odd to me too) by willfully stopping the violence and turning to the UN. From a strictly realistic point of view, this would at least leave them relatively less scathed by the international media than Israel. No other happy solution or resolution awaits them.

Just Ducky

2006-07-21T22:21:00.000-04:00

If it walks like a Duck, and quacks like a Duck, it still is merely imitating a Shrub. I knew that the twins were a little too keen on Shrub for my taste, but I had no idea that they would go so far as to make their own attempts at Shrubisms. It just goes to show you that "black" and "white" truly are difficult concepts to grasp. I should have known this was going to be the case, after there was a bit of confusion as to which Republic they were running.
And if that weren't enough, the Ducks are have threatened to make political prisoners of those who make political jokes. Nevertheless, it's good to see that the Polish news hasn't lost its sense of humour. I only wish I knew that I knew where they found that leaving "Duckville" sign so that I, too, might one day have my picture taken in front of it.

Just to recap, this is how any sane family reacting to President Duck's election.

HRW

2006-07-21T05:40:00.000-04:00

The staff of Human Rights Watch keep their website amazingly up to date. They have already set about posting articles which show that the Israelis are deliberately targeting soft targets, rather than surgically trying to remove Hezbollah. The BBC has come out with a more general article on this matter, which mentions, among other things, Israeli targeting of ambulances. And let's not forget that bombing civilians is a wholly ineffective tactic (unless you care to dabble in a bit of nuclear warfare, Dr. Strangelove). There is at least one website up which shows rather graphic picture of the results of these ball bearings and other weapons used, which I will refrain from posting. Even I have a degree of self-restraint (unlike certain governments which are engaging in a "measured" response). I sincerely hope that those who made the decision to attack these targets, along with those who carried out those orders, are prosecuted. I won't hold my breath.

Proof

2006-07-20T18:51:00.000-04:00

that sleeping with a man can reduce his mental capacity. Oh, Austria!

How Not to Charm Me

2006-07-20T13:50:00.000-04:00

As I sit down to enjoy my well deserved cappuccino, tell me that if I drink said beverage I will be 300 lbs (135 kg) by the year's end and then call me Russian (earlier, I'd been speaking on my mobile, and we all know just how incredibly similar Polish and Russian are). Thank you, Chief Smoke.

Culture of Life

2006-07-20T11:14:00.000-04:00

As we all know, the US' Mighty Leader hath smitten down legislation which would have expanded federal funding of stem cell research. Forget about the separation of Church and State, this is about basic human decency and morality, we are told. After all, America is a Culture of Life! Ah, it all becomes clear now. Americans can kill freely, but gee, when it comes to stem cell research, something which could potentially afford us with the knowledge needed to save countless lives, well that just ain't right, folks.
Even Average Joe has differed with his drinking buddy of a president on the issue. It apparently also matters little to Shrub and the GOP that the scientific community has made clear that research performed on adult, rather than embryonic, stem cells holds more promise. Even if this weren't the case, the argument to carry out such research is simply too strong. Among other important factors is the fact that the vast majority of embryos used in this research would otherwise be destroyed. I am only saddened that Congress failed to negate his veto.

Update: I feel that I might be relying a bit too much on the daily show as of late. While I am not going to link to the original piece he did on the matter, the update on the piece seems to mirror this post quite well.

On the Situation in Lebanon

2006-07-20T07:08:00.000-04:00

The UN has released at least two interesting, albeit unsurprising statements.

Louise Arbour, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, has warned that those who have deliberately attacked civilians could face war crimes charges. Already the UN's human rights body seems to have at least gotten a louder bark. Of course, nothing will come of this, as the Israeli forces will claim that only known Hezbollah targets were attacked and will impede information gathering as much as they possibly can. Nevertheless, the statement is reassuring in light of Jan Egeland's statement.
He, as the UN's emergency relief coordinator, has stated that nearly one third of all dead or wounded were children. Regardless of the age of the victims, it is impossible for aid agencies to provide them with the attention that they need as it is too dangerous for those agencies to move supplies around in southern Lebanon.

Lastly, I would like to bring attention to the fear that many Lebanese have expressed. Namely, they are worried that once foreign nationals have been evacuated, the situation in Lebanon will get worse. I am liable to agree with them. When I first read their statements, I was reminded of Rwanda. Yes, I realise this has yet to become a case of genocide which would call for such a parallel. Nevertheless, the situation escalated after foreigners were able to flee the country. The world will not watch as closely when its loved ones are no longer threatened by the bombings. In other news, its good to see that Israel still likes to attack refugee camps in Gaza.

Courtesy of K

2006-07-20T06:54:00.000-04:00

I would much prefer to post the link to this blog posting, but alas, I received it via email, sans link. And so I am merely going to reproduce it below and hope that its internal links transfers as well. Marvel at my laziness. Enjoy:
2729202, Our dumb presidentPosted by BobcatJH on Tue Jul-18-06 12:32 PM
You know, every time the president's intelligence comes up for debate, the right wing is quick to tell everyone that, in fact, President Bush isn't an ignorant moron. What's more, not only is he not an ignorant moron, but he's also not an arrogant boor, his behavior on the world stage not a cause for embarrassment. He's a Yale man, after all, with a Harvard MBA to boot! Well today, I'm calling "bullshit" on the right wing. The president is all of those things ... and more.The ignorance, the boorishness, the embarrassing behavior were all on display at this year's G8 Summit, which concluded Monday. Between the president's stuffing a roll in his mouth to his use of "shit" in an exchange with Tony Blair to his witless banter with world leaders to his more-than-awkward surprise "massage" of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, our dumb president has never been dumber or more embarrassing. Or, for that matter, more AWOL when the world needs our leadership most. But that's alright, his defenders will say, he's just being himself, being authentic. Great. Our president is an authentic jackass.It was the "shit" heard 'round the world. In fact, it drew top billing with many news outlets at a time when the world appears to be unravelling as we speak. Bush, who, like Blair, didn't know their conversation was being recorded, called the British prime minister over at the luncheon that closed the summit. "Blair," Bush asked, "what are you doing? You leaving?" When Blair shifted the conversation to trade negotiations, Bush shifted it back, thanking Blair for a sweater he gave the president as a gift, most likely for his recent birthday. Then, the conversation shifted to the Middle East. After a brief exchange, and while continuing to talk with his mouth full of what appeared to be a roll, the president said, "See, the irony is what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit, and it's over."While using profanity and speaking with your mouth full are by no means nothing new - just ask my girlfriend, who could tell you both have been a part of my daily repertoire for years - I'm not the president. I'm not this nation's top ambassador to the rest of the planet. I'm not the public face of the United States of America. I'm just an average American and a blogger. I write things about people ranging from morons like Brad Stine and Ann Coulter to role models like Edward R. Murrow and Al Gore. I don't have my finger on the nuclear (or the "nucular") trigger. I don't travel in Air Force One, nor do I have a Secret Service detail. And I don't attend summits where I'm expected to, at the bare minimum, act like I've been there before. But Bush is all of these things; I'd just love to be able to dress him up and take him out without him embarrassing himself - or us.So the president said "shit" and couldn't hold a conversation without stuffing his face. We've all done it. But what's as concerning to me, if not more, was the manner by which the president spoke with his fellow world leaders in an unguarded moment caught on tape. Hint: Like an idiot. When asked by someone, most likely an aide, something about whether or not the president wanted a prepared statement to close the meeting, Bush replied, "No. Just gonna make it up. I'm not going to talk too damn long like the rest of them. Some of these guys talk too long." Then, the president shifted his conversation to, quite likely though the exchange wasn't on camera, Chinese President Hu Jintao. "Gotta go home," Bush said. "Got something to do tonight. Go to the airport, get on the airplane and go home. How about you? Where are you going? Home?" Continuing, Bush added, "This is your neighborhood. It doesn't take you long to get home. How long does it take you to get home?"Though the reply was inaudible, Bush then said, "Eight hours? Me too. Russia's a big country and you're a big country." As the Washington Post indicates, it's at this point that the president apparently brought someone else into the exchange. "It takes him eight hours to fly home," Bush said, telling a server that he wanted a Diet Coke. "It takes him eight hours to fly home. Eight hours. Russia's big and so is China." Russia's big and so is China? Just gonna make it up? Is he, as Cenk Uygur said, a third grader? Do you feel a lot safer knowing that you voted for a man whose idea of tableside conversation is asking world leaders how long their ride home is and marveling at the size of their countries?When he wasn't showing his grasp of global geography, the president was busy doing things that would normally trigger a workplace sexual harassment workshop. Cameras captured the president walking behind Merkel and giving her an impromptu shoulder massage. Her look, which mirrors the look of any unsuspecting female in a bar when a drunk gets touchy-feely, was priceless. Bush's look, coincidentally, matched the look of that drunk. I mean, what the fuck? Somehow, I don't see former presidents Bush or Clinton doing this with Helmut Kohl. Nor, also, do I see either Bush or Clinton asking their secretary of state for permission to use the restroom, as this president has in the past. But a massage? Seriously? I know these summits can be tiring, tedious affairs, but does that fact warrant our president acting like the office letch? I doubt it.Let's face facts: Our president is dumb. He doesn't know what he's talking about. He doesn't know how to act in public. And it's always been that way. It's been more than 70 years since "... the only thing we have to fear is fear itself". More than 40 since "... ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." And, in that time, we've gone from the measured words of true statesmen to "Russia's big and so is China." Let me be the latest to ask: What the hell happened? When did flipping pancakes, taking hunting trips or throwing a football become more important for our presidential candidates than knowing what the hell they were doing? More specifically, when did we, as Americans, decide that that was what we wanted out of our presidents? I'd sure like to know, because, as I've said before, "Isn't it a tad insane that we care more about whether we can have a beer with our president than whether we think he can save us from a fucking disaster or actually knows the difference between his asshole and a hole in the ground when it comes to foreign policy?" Who cares if the president would be a great guy to have a drink with? Hell, this one isn't even supposed to have a drink. Or, maybe he's not supposed to but he has, which would go a long way to explaining Bush's behavior at the G8 Summit. Either way, he was an embarrassment. And he always has been.

Long Time. No Sen

2006-07-19T17:57:00.000-04:00

You know it is just one of those days when you have crafted a particularly poor pun, which finds its origins in your having come across an article authored by Amartya Sen that you had read more than a little while ago.

How Utterly and Completely Embarrassing

2006-07-19T07:35:00.000-04:00

Because this is all that Poland needed not only a year ago, but also today. Really. And now they really are going to be ruling together, despite their original hestitation. But honestly, this about sums it up. And as you all know quite well, it is oh such a good idea to take away a livable PM with the older, populist brother...
It even made the Daily Show.

Query

2006-07-19T07:20:00.000-04:00

So does the fact that the Israelis are indiscriminately bombing Hezbollah in a order to secure the release of two Israeli soldiers mean that the Israelis know where the soldiers are? Or, in order to secure their release, are they willing to kill them in the process? Or are they merely relying on their captors to keep them from harm's way?
And is Shrub really so willfully uninformed that he honestly believes that Syria has been the only source of Lebanon's issues?

And Now for Something Completely Different

2006-07-19T07:06:00.000-04:00

No John Cleese, I'm afraid. However, we shall delve into the dangerous world of British humour, Fry and Laurie style:
Judge Not
Safe Sex
Dark Thoughts

Okay, so this is not a bit of Fry and Laurie, but the song still makes me laugh:
Il gatto e la volpe

Stuck on the Details

2006-07-19T06:39:00.000-04:00

What is going on in Lebanon is surely a tragedy for all involved. However, when I was reading this story last night, all I could think of was the Sri Lankan maid, who had doubtlessly thought that she was safer in Lebanon than in her homeland. And yet, here is she, dead, victim of a cosmic joke.
I also seemed to have gotten lost in the details of a story which centred on yet another anti-Israeli protest in Iran. Frankly, under normal circumstances, I don't think this would have even made the news. Rather than focusing on the bigger picture, I was imaging to myself the posters portraying Shrub as bin Laden or Hitler. I recalled a few from K's year in Tehran, and I most certainly have seen many an English version. I suppose the moral of the story is that there need not be any originality in opposing Shrub. Although I also think that Shrub is a fascist (and I think this is what he meant by the liberal's tendency to "coddle the enemy", giving them "comfort", as it were--I mean, after all, if I am not with him, I must be with each and every one of America's enemies, all of whom are great, GREAT friends, I might add), I think there is some bit of humour in the Iranian's associating Hitler with Shrub while simultaneously protesting his support of Israel. Not unusual, mind you. Just mildly amusing.

Does No One Else Find This Strange?

2006-07-18T19:47:00.000-04:00

Israel had occupied Lebanon on June 6, 1982. It remained there for 18 years. During this time, it could not destroy Hezbollah. And now it is claiming that it is going to finish the job once and for all? And at the same time the Israeli PM is claiming that Iran had timed the attack so as to divert attention from its nuclear programme? Let's seriously look at what these little sound bites mean briefly. Taken at face value, (1) Israel now plans to do over the next few weeks what it could not accomplish in 18 years; (2) it was tricked by Iran into attacking Lebanon (a response, from what I understand, which was not anticipated); (3) by remaining, Israel believes that it is helping take the pressure off of Tehran and yet; (4) Israel will not leave until it has accomplished its "mission". Clearly, the Israelis have taken away the cigars from the monkeys writing their press releases, and this is how the cigar-addicted monkeys are retaliating. Clearly.

But It's Okay

2006-07-18T10:57:00.000-04:00

Several days ago, in a fit of dark humour, a friend of mine (who we shall refer to as Brad, or in the alternative Bogdan, whichever he prefers) informed me that Israel was bombing Lebanon, but that it was okay if civilians died. "You see", he said, "Israel warned them and so it is their fault if they don't get out of the way on time". Apparently, not only can Shrub say this with a straight face, but he also means it. Shocking as it might be to us simpletons, an international peace keeping force acting as a buffer between the two sides would be a bad idea. Right...
And yet. And yet, the Economist is more or less hoping for American intervention in Somalia. Here is what I find somewhat interesting: (1) the Economist claims that the US wants to make it up to Somalia for supporting the warlords (this in and of itself is a slightly bizarre assertion) and; (2) the US is allergic to the Islamists in Somalia (ah, stating the obvious). Now, if the US doesn't support the Islamists, sees little point in supporting the Somalian transitional "government" in Baidoa, and wants to make up for its past support of the warlords, who is it, exactly, that the Economist wants the US to support? The article suggests the AU. The AU seems to support what neither the Islamists, nor the transitional government wants (but what would probably be the best result for all those concerned, at least as far as Somaliland is concerned). I am all the more confused by the conclusion of the article, which states that the Islamists and the transitional government should share power. Yes, that solution seems to make sense. However, I do not understand how the Economist honestly believes that the US would be capable of promoting such a conclusion. Then again, this is an area of the world I unfortunately know little about. Perhaps, indeed, I am missing something. I would love to be educated as to how this article and contemporary US policies can be reconciled.
I must say that I am rather disappointed. I value the Economist. I think it is a good publication, despite the fact that it is too conservative for my tastes. For shame.

I Love the Timeworn Irony

2006-07-18T07:27:00.000-04:00

This is somehow reassuring. That is to say, no matter how much things change, they nevertheless stay the same.

Random Fact

2006-02-28T08:08:00.000-05:00

The largest pancake ever made was 15m in diameter, and weighted 3 tonnes, with an estimated caloric value of 2 million. My question is how did they flip that thing?

Trading Spouses

2006-02-28T00:31:00.000-05:00

This was from a reality tv show about trading spouses. Not getting into the larger issue that that show would require me to explore, why would a "spiritual warrior" agree to be on such a show, who would want to trade their spouse for her?
I think I may have to sleep with the lights on for the foreseeable future.

Note to Self: Reaffirm South Dakota's Place Among States I would have Removed From the Union

2006-02-23T07:23:00.000-05:00

Granted, it hasn't been passed. Yet. However, it would have passed in 2004 if Gov. Rounds hadn't felt it would have resulted in an abortion free-for-all (because didn't you know gentlemen, abortions are what we ladies like to do on a Saturday night. In South Dakota. At the one and only Planned Parent Hood Clinic. In fact, there are so many of us there, chillin', relaxin' and actin' all cool, that we actually have to draw straws so as to determine which one of us will get to kill our fetuses. We then perform pagan, Satanist rituals and go to Starbucks.). This time the legislation was proposed by a Democrat. Yes, that's right. A DEMOCRAT. Last time I had checked, they weren't so concerned about what I was doing with my uterus (correctly, it makes for a nice storage area. I like to carry my books to class in this fashion, so as to ensure that my professors won't call on me.). Also, please notice that the very people proposing this legislation, legislation, which I might add, only allows abortion if the mother's life is in danger, refuse to but the ban to voters in the November elections. No, no. They would rather that this merely be between them and their newly found friends on the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is an issue I am still not fully able to talk about. It leaves me dumbfounded. Well, at least it was warmer during the Dark Ages. What, with burning all those witches at the stake, and such.
I also enjoyed reading that there is an anonymous donor standing by with 1 million usd for legal fees. Personally, I don't think he is remaining anonymous because he is ashamed of his actions. In fact, I would wager that not only has he bragged about it to his friends and family, but has already discussed it with his accountant, so as to ensure that he would be able to write it off against his taxes.

Excited Utterance Exception

2006-02-21T01:02:00.000-05:00

I brought the leftover carrot cake I made to school today to share with my friends. While it seemed to be a hit with everyone, my favourite comment was: "Oh my god! You can cook?!" Why, yes. Yes, I can. Just because I don't do something [on a regular basis], doesn't mean I can't do it.
That said, having come home to find that I had to make shortcrust dough from scratch to make the quiche I promised the maternal unit, I can assure everyone that I have gotten the home ec bug out of my system. Mind you, I had also managed to make some stuffed peppers while I waited for the dough to chill. Apparently, I can only go two nights in a row in the kitchen before running into the arms of semi-instant foods. Woe is me, I think.

Alfred Hitchcock Presents

2006-02-20T09:27:00.000-05:00

There is nothing quite like heading out to watch Audrey Hepburn with the gals. Especially when what greets you is a scene not unlike the ones bestowed upon us in The Birds. Mind you, there are no birds to be seen anywhere else in Our Fair City; the cold simply ruffles their feathers too much. And so, when we arrived just before dark, rendering the crows' silhouettes just perceivable, we were amazed to see any life in the trees whatsoever. Then, having slighted the beasts in some unforeseeable manner, they started circling the apartment building that was our destination, cawing loudly. Even indoors, every now and then, one could hear their call. But the most astonishing image bided us farewell when we left: the whole of two blocks, streets and cars alike, had been rendered completely white. Oh, yes. Unlike the stuffed birds on one of Hitchcock's claim to fame, these birds pooped, and were indeed masters of the art. Were I not afraid of being pelted myself, I would have taken a picture. Instead, I duly walked three blocks out of my way, so as to preserve my feces-free decor.

Deep Thoughts à la SNL

2006-02-17T21:50:00.000-05:00

We all know the literary origins of Big Brother. This evening, however, I am troubled by the notion of Big Brother watching my every move. Despite your initial thoughts, I do not intend to discuss the methods any given state may use to spy on its own citizens. Rather, I am somewhat befuddled by the idea of an older sibling spying on a younger sibling. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it the case that younger siblings generally spy on their older ones, much to everyone's regret?

Law School Isn't Day Care

2006-02-15T20:29:00.000-05:00

I fail to understand how certain members of the student body have gall to bring their tykes into class. This isn't day care. Granted, there isn't a sign outside any of the classrooms which politely asks you to check your kids at the door. However, the grounds also lack a sign which asks you to solely relieve yourself in the restrooms, and there has yet to be a problem with following this unspoken rule.
I understand that on occasion finding someone to watch over the little one is simply impossible. My mother often had this problem when we first came to this country. However, she was always able to leave me in some room of the medical facilities or with a colleague of hers for the time period during which her classes were scheduled. She did this to ensure that I would not become a nuisance during class. Moreover, the ABA allows us lowly students to miss an allotted number of classes per course per semester. Hence, these parents could have just as easily taken their offspring to the conservatory, thereby imparting something of worth onto them.
Several times during tax, I became frightened that the VP might shoot me in the neck, as there were distinct, quail-like noises coming from the back of the room. That same "quail" made another special appearance during Conflicts. This is not to say, however, that this has been the only rodent to appear in the classrooms as of late (and yes, I realise that a quail is a bird, and not a rodent). For whatever reason, it seems to have become fashionable among the parents attending our law school to start their children's legal educations at an early age. Personally, I should think that having these individuals as parents would be scarring enough. Bringing them face to face with the American judicial system is just overkill.

Valentine's Day

2006-02-14T20:24:00.000-05:00

Rather than leaving a comment in response to this posting, I decided that I would write a post of my own in response. Before I begin to talk about Valentine's Day, I should probably also mention that I don't like Mother's Day or Thanksgiving either (although neither of those two holidays bother me nearly as much as this one). This has nothing to do with my not having anyone to share this holiday with. Rather, my dislike for this Hallmark-created holiday has everything to do with its commercial nature and the accompanying openly-voiced complaints. I do not limit this statement to the Valentine's Day commercials mentioned on Pestilence's blog. In fact, those commercials don't bother me personally in the least, as I do not own a television (this, however, is not to say that I do not have a moral problem with them). No, no. That would be petty.
My source of irritation is something slightly different. What truly bothers me is that every Valentine's Day brings with it nothing more than a slew of complaints. Contrary to popular belief, these are made mostly by those people who are in relationships. The complaints can be generalised into two separate categories.

The people in the first category complain about actually having to celebrate Valentine's Day because their partner wants to. It is not the cost that bothers them, but the actual holiday itself; they have qualms with the stress that comes with trying to make a single day perfect.
Members of the second category, on the other hand, are put off by the sheer amount of money that they have had to spend on gifts or, in the alternative, having to come up with the "perfect" Valentine's Day gift.

It is the nagging of these two groups--nagging which has created the white noise of the day--that I have issues with. It would seem that simply celebrating spending time with one's lover no longer has anything to do with Valentine's Day.

State of the Union Address

2006-02-12T22:15:00.000-05:00

Courtesy of T. A perfect decryption of the State of the Union Address.

Gets Me Every Time

2006-02-12T17:17:00.000-05:00

Whenever I sit down to my E's and T's textbook, without fail, I come across some statement which makes me stop in my tracks. This is not necessarily because I disagree with what is being said. Rather, these statements often make me wonder if the authors didn't have a bit too much fun in piecing this masterpiece together. In this case, I was reading about mental capacity (which is not be confused with actual knowledge! because you might be mistaken as to whether one of your children is alive! zombies, the lot of them, I tell you!). In this context, I came across the following treasure: "nor must the testator be of average intelligence, as this would incapacitate almost half the population". Love it.

Don't Hassel the Hoff

2006-02-12T15:33:00.000-05:00

I couldn't keep this from you any longer, internet. T and I have a new found love: David "I just got this feeling" Hasselhoff. That's right--the music video, brought to you by the man who starred in La Coche Fantastico with that hero of heros, "Kit", has forced upon our friends and family much ooga chaka induced embarrassment. Share in our merriment!

Overdeveloped Sense of Confidence

2006-02-10T08:57:00.000-05:00

I went out for a bit of karaoke last night to, of all places, a Mexican "joint" (I am not quite sure how else one would describe this venue). To give you the proper flavour of the place, allow me to explain that there have been persons who have been arrested for dealing crack at this most clean of establishments--this on relatively ritzy street for Our Fair City. It was there that I realised that perhaps my lack of caring about the opinions of others had grown unhealthily out of hand. Fair enough, I made a big deal out of singing in front of my fellow students. However, having gotten up on stage, my heart refused to race; no adrenaline set in. Mind you, this is not because my voice fails to invoke sweet memories of the Sirens merely because Orpheus (or in this case the VJ) has drowned it out with the exquisite music of his lyre. Oh no, no. It fails in this respect all my its lonesome.
Perhaps I have become a monster without being a myth. Perhaps it is unfair. But perhaps I will look forward to the next karaoke night all the same.

Editing, at its Finest

2006-02-09T13:16:00.000-05:00

Let's get this straight. The US Congress has been banned (on several occasions during the last six months, to boot) from editing information on Wikipedia because the Congressmen have had their staffers tweak their bios. Suddenly, Republican Congressmen have never claimed to have served, only to have had to recant their statements because they were blatantly false. And liberal Congressmen, in their youth, were not so much "liberal" as they were "activists". Good to know that these Congressmen are such good, forthright and upstanding folk. Role models for us all, to be sure.

American Nightclub Girls

2006-02-06T09:32:00.000-05:00

Having crashed my professor's soiree, I continued on to a nightclub with some of my colleagues (the journey from point A to point B took considerably longer than it should have because we became quite lost on the infamous roads of Our Fair City; so long, in fact, that I permitted myself a cat nap). At the particular nightclub we went to, there were two scantily clad women dancing on tables with poles and one a swing. This in itself did not trouble me. What troubled me was that this nightclub obviously made a fair amount of money, and yet only seemed to have been able to hire "plump" go-go girls. My Taiwanese colleague was equally bewildered. It is not that there is anything wrong with being fat. It is just something that I never associated with such jobs.

Doubting Darwin

2006-02-06T09:19:00.000-05:00

Nothing makes me doubt Darwin quite like the proof of devolution that the Superbowl brings forth. Masses of generally homophobic men and vapid women gather around their sets, enthralled by overly large men, who choose to wear spandex, spank each other and engage in a game which requires no skill. These men and women, quite drunk by this stage I assure you, then feel the need to drive on the black ice while honking their horns, despite a martial law like police presence. And people wonder why I prefer living in my own personal bubble. And I feel no hypocrisy in saying, I love the "other" football (soccer).

Why Every Now and Then, One Must Love the Security Counsel Unquestioningly

2006-02-06T09:05:00.000-05:00

K sent me the following:
"The United States will be the president of the UN Security Council for the month of February. US ambassador John Bolton's attempt to start the meetings of the council just on time failed. The meeting starts at 10 AM and none of the 15 members showed up on time".
To read more, just click on the title posting. I would also like to see the US try to flex its oh so multilingual-friendly muscle by issuing the circulars in the six official UN languages.
While I really don't feel the need to comment on this, I feel compelled to say that the US should not try to mess with Eurasia at least in this one area: our expertise at using time consuming bureaucracy to stall through the bad times (in this case, the month of February) is second to none.

How Not to Help Your Cause

2006-02-05T13:27:00.000-05:00

By this point every semi-informed individual has either seen or at least read a description of at least one of the highly offensive Danish cartoons. I hate to beat a dead horse, but the childish behaviour that this has given rise to has left me frustrated and conflicted enough to write a posting on the matter. Therefore, I will try my utmost to keep this short, even at the risk of explaining fully how I feel about this matter.
First of all, let's get one thing straight. Freedom of speech laws in Europe are more restrictive than they are in the US. There are just certain things that you cannot say. Many of them stem back to WWII. Hence, hate speech, especially anti-Semitic hate speech, is restrained. Therefore, the cartoon's very publication (as separate from what it depicts) in Denmark adds insult to injury. Frankly, this is behaviour one would expect more from right-wing American wacknuts.
Having said that, I also think that newspapers should be able to insult people and ideas. In all honestly, this is more or less their job--otherwise we would all be reading about how the grass grows. I think religion, like nationality, is an entity which should not be taken too seriously, lest it throw us into yet another series of wars for the glory of so-called creators, all of which (last I checked) preached loving one's fellow man. Perhaps as an atheist I don't understand what people derive from their religion which would drive them to such ends. However, I don't think this is the case. I think that people need to have their sensitivities prodded on a regular basis to keep people from taking themselves to seriously.
The problem that I have with the cartoon is not that it portrayed an image of the prophet, but rather that it was yet another example of mass-labelling which failed to reflect any characteristic shared by the majority of the Muslim world. A sizable portion of my friends happen to be Muslim. Generally, these people are among the most kind and gentle of my friends. They are also among the most knowledgeable when it comes to world affairs. As it were, the other people who fall into this category of my friends happen to be Norwegian. Oh, the irony. Perhaps I should mention here that the cartoon was only published by one, small Christian newspaper in Norway, which no one really reads. Why? Because Norway is not what one might refer to as a religious country.
I understand that there is outrage. However, I fail to see the profit in responding to a cartoon which suggests that all Muslims are terrorists by attacking embassies and burning flags. Perhaps a violent response is not the best way to show that the cartoon is not only offensive, but also a completely misleading stereotype. Just a thought.

In the Shadow of Glory, or Something like That

2006-01-26T19:51:00.000-05:00

Berlin Online has quoted my friend on the issue of Ahmadinejad's recent anti-Israeli statements. Read it. That is all.

Lechia, Lechistan: Potato, Po Tah Toe

2006-01-24T20:14:00.000-05:00

I have known for some time now that Poland is referred to as Lechistan (pronounced Leh i stan) in several Middle Eastern countries and Turkey. Apparently this also holds true for certain Central Asian countries as well.
Nevertheless, imagine my surprise when my best friend called, inquiring as to when the Ottoman Empire had ended its rule of Poland. This, as you should be aware, is not because she has cabbage for brains. Rather, she called in order to have me explain to her friend that Poland had never been subject to Ottoman Rule (Jan III Sobieski anyone?). His rationale appeared to have been that since Poland's historical name was Lechistan, it had to have been because the Ottomans had made it that far north. He must be an absolutely brilliant chap, I am sure.

Natural Law

2006-01-24T20:07:00.000-05:00

In Conflicts of Law, we were discussing the outdated nature of the First Restatement as regards to marriage. To put it concisely, it basically describes inter-racial marriage as odious and against natural law. Hoping to incite a lively discussion, our professor posed the question of what types of marriage might be considered to be against natural law both in that time period and today. Without hesitation and in a clear, excited voice, a classmate called out, "Man and Beast". Now, while I laughed heartily when this was said, I am now afflicted with the memory every time I enter that classroom.
Oh, but he really did love Erma. Her matted fleece was always so warm to the touch...if only the state had legally allowed them to proclaim their union.

Chuck Norris

2006-01-23T08:57:00.000-05:00

Time to end this debate on evolution and intelligent design. We all know they are both complete bollocks. "There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live." And lest you think I am earth-centric, allow me to assure you that, "outer space exists because it's afraid to be on the same planet as Chuck Norris".
If you too should happen to desire to unravel earth's mysteries, I assure you that learning Chuck Norris facts will help you achieve that laudable goal.
*Disclaimer: I believe that Chuck Norris is evolution. Anyone who believes in intelligent design should be roundhouse kicked by Chuck Norris. Into the 1400's.

Positively Bond

2006-01-23T08:53:00.000-05:00

It appears that Russia is still the centre o' espionage, just not its own in this case. Glory be, it allegedly even includes a high tech rock.

ALF

2006-01-22T11:35:00.000-05:00

Having allowed an ECHR classmate of mine to listen to the glory that is Polish gypsy music, I was met with the question of whether I knew and liked Alf. Naturally, I do. In fact, I can't imagine the heartless soul who would dare spit on our 1980's extraterrestrial friend. The problem was, however, that I was born in the 1980's, and didn't go to the US until 1986. Hence, my memories of the actual content of individual episodes is what one might call "lacking". Shameful, indeed. As a result, I had no recollection of the episode to which he was referring. Apparently, at one time, Alf had become completely enthralled by a certain Polka, and proceeded to request it so often from a particular radio station that it became a number one hit.
Now let's look at the score here. This person associates my country with hitmen, drunks (fair enough), Alf and polkas (okay, okay; that is fair game as well). Welcome to my country. If we don't kill you, furry brown creatures will force you to listen a single polka ad nausem. Please enjoy your stay.

Taking the Piss out of Myself

2006-01-22T11:30:00.000-05:00

For the record, I would like to state the activities of my countrymen, as perceived by the ECHR. We are either hitmen in the Netherlands, or drunks who break into post offices, and then, once sober, are sent to mental institutions. Yeah, you heard me. Don't fuck around.
Incidentally, due to some language fun involving the eating of the clown and drunken rabbits, a German friend of mine informed me we get drunk first and only then become hitmen. It would seem this improves our aim.

Do I Look that Pleasant

2006-01-22T11:07:00.000-05:00

I like to joke about nationalities--my own, as well as those of my friends. In other words, the teasing is reciprocal. However, every now and then one runs into one of these wretched souls who has a giant piece of cabbage occupying the space where his brain ought to be. Inevitably, these people are strangers to me, as I can't be bothered to waste my hot air on them.
A few days ago, unfortunately, I found myself sitting at the same table with one of these gems. My patience that day had been worn thin by two hours of E's and T's, a class whose main topic is death and whose professor seems to have partaken in said activity for nigh on 60 years. Having questioned his Polishness (he had already begun to dig his hole, claiming that his 50% Polish blood somehow conferred Polishness upon him; if that is the case, I might as well hold myself out to also be French, Hungarian and Mongolian), he decided that he had two options: to defend his heritage or disparage Poland. He chose the latter, awkwardly stumbling onto the topic of the national bird. Now mind you, this boy was an American, ie his national bird also happens to be a type of eagle. Nevertheless, he chose to call this national symbol a sickly chicken. Getting no response, he did admit that it was an eagle. I deigned to give him the proper name of the bird, only to be asked if what I had said wasn't a type of beer. Had it not been for a couple of my ECHR classmates, who had appeared at that moment as if on cue, there would have been blood. It just would not have done to have stumbled into a human rights class in bloodsoaked clothed. A faux pas, as it were.
Allow me to reiterate: I love making fun of peoples' nationalities. I believe that problems arise when people take their own nationalities seriously. However, I do not appreciate perfect strangers taking this liberty. I do not think its funny. And frankly, it matters little to me if you think you are being cute or not.

Presumptuous

2006-01-21T21:39:00.000-05:00

American cafes and teahouses are different from their European counterparts. All too often, their patrons include those who value themselves too much, believing their ability to pay for steamed milk and espressos to be a sign of their divinity or some such nonsense. As I was patiently standing in line with a friend of mine in a none-too-commercialised cafe, I had the misfortune of meeting the most evolved of their breed. With his plump hand artificially wiping non-existent sweat from his beaten brow, this specimen, out of breath as he was, managed to pull forth the words, "do you have any more of that ty nant water? I just ran in to get some. It is the only thing I will drink. Have you tried it yet? It is even better than Fiji water".
Lest any of you be confused, I stress that I was not in a water bar. Before my eyes--dare I say it--I had a connoisseur of water. What can I say, save to tell you that tears came to my gentle eyes. Not that such salty liquid was of any consequence to him.

And So I'm Back

2006-01-21T20:50:00.000-05:00

I am sure that you have all missed me dearly. I wish I could claim that I have spent my most recent months riding mad wildebeests throughout, say, Papua New Guinea or some equally unlikely place, but sadly no; 'twas not the case. In fact, I only managed to jump the pond twice (ie, a roundtrip flight), which resulted in a gathering of my family--that is to say, the two token men, and many opinionated women. Thank goodness the sixteen hundreds are behind us, as things might have gotten a little more heated than usual otherwise. Despite being white, it is truly remarkable how reassuring it was to return to a country where the people look (among other things, Slav facial structure is different), talk and more or less act like I do.

Suffixes and Sexism

2006-01-14T15:36:00.000-05:00

Don't get me wrong. Much to my cousins' disgust, I am a feminist. However, there is a limit to everything. Recently, I was reading my E's and T's textbook, having been awoken by Pestilence at the ungodly hour of noon (frankly, I don't see Pestilence often enough to have told her to sod off). The authors informed me that the female Latin suffixes would not be used when referring to administrators or executors, meaning that at no point in the book would I see the terms "administratrix" or "executrix", let alone "creditrix" or "donatrix". It is the authors' contention that this is their contribution to combating sexism in the law. Indeed, they quote Bentham's oft spoken words, reminding us that the hardest errors to correct are those which find their root in language.
Personally, I do not see any sexism, inherent or otherwise, present in the usage of these Latin suffixes. Such a statement could only have been made by someone who has no knowledge of any language which utilises gender for all nouns. Every European language of which I have any working knowledge of, uses gender to differentiate between males and females. This is not because any judgment is being made on the person's skill, but rather it is merely a natural part of the language. This is no different from Polish assigning books the female gender, tables the male gender, while proclaiming beer to be neuter. I would think that the term "executrix" would imply the very opposite of what the authors suggest. Namely, I would think the use of the term would show an ever increasing rend of seeing women as capable of also being able to fulfill this role.
Then again, I shouldn't expect too much of these authors, as they surely do not expect to much of me. After all, they have found it necessary to inform me that dead people can't inherit because they would have no use for the property, the tossers.

Tom Cruise Disturbs Me

2005-11-21T00:40:00.000-05:00

This is what you get sent to you when you can't sleep. I don't rightly understand why, seeing as after having seen it, I was much less likely to be able to fall asleep.

Reminder of Rabin

2005-11-12T22:31:00.000-05:00

Today marks the tenth anniversary of Rabin's death. To think that so much death and suffering could have possibly been avoided had this man lived makes one truly understand the power and significance a single individual could have on an entire region. Ironically, now one of his harsher critics is following certain similar policies. If only people realised that peace and life is more valuable than land and a false sense of superiority. Ultra-nationalism has never caused anything but destruction. I fail to understand why this is such a hard lesson to learn.

Petty Much?

2005-11-10T13:53:00.000-05:00

I honestly half thought that my babcia was joking when she informed me that Russia, to please the far right, had instituted a new holiday (actually, more like reinvented an old one): Moscow's liberation from Polish invaders in 1612. For goodness sake, it isn't as if Russia, in its various forms, hadn't occupied Poland several times since 1612, more than making up for any time Poles spent on Russian soil. Then again, I suppose we should all be so wary of those mischievous Poles....

Clearly More in Touch with the Inner Ape

2005-11-10T12:42:00.000-05:00

Last time I checked, I was entering an institution of higher learning every morning. I appear to have been grossly mistaken. Or perhaps the problem is that I am too conservative. I seem to think that everything has its time and place. Call me crazy. Therefore, I was, let's politely say, put off when a group of 2L's decided that Our Law School's lounge was the proper setting to display an utter lack of gross and fine motor functions. Don't worry, no one had an epileptic seizure--I wouldn't be in a foul mood if that were the case. Rather, these supposedly educated persons proceeded to launch tupplewear across the room repeatedly, both aiming at each other and the rubbish bin. As the coup de grâce, they decided to crush an aluminum can and send it on a path which lead it to whiz mere inches away from Pestilence's person. And my inches away, I mean landed on her foot. As I left the room, they assured each other that I think they are immature...you think?

A "Different Kind of War"

2005-11-09T07:09:00.000-05:00

Shock! The CIA may decide to initiate criminal proceedings against "the leak" which gave rise to the Washington Post article (see "Telling Us What We Already Suspected"). All of this, naturally, is being looked into despite the fact that the White House has yet to confirm or deny the existence of these sites (which more or less means that they do exist). What I find interesting, apart from the course this matter has predictably been taking, is that the CIA, by choosing this course of action, is drawing more attention to the issue at hand. I am also bemused to learn the Shrub Administration has issued yet another round of directives banning the use of torture and dogs during interrogations (wolves are next, perhaps? I say this only somewhat sarcastically). If it weren't for the human lives involved, I would actually find this funny. There seems to be an inverse corollary between the directives issued and the "allegations of torture".
What truly irritates me is:

On Tuesday Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice averted questions on the issue, saying only that the US was in a "different
kind of war" and had an obligation to defend itself.

How the use of torture can be justified simply due to the "kind of war" being "fought" is beyond me. Considering America's history (Americans, incidentally, like so many people seeking independence, used "terrorism" to secure it, at least in the stages before the war for independence--however, in this case I am referring to their "proud democratic" history) you would think that they would at least make some effort to live up to the idea of winning precisely because you fight with one hand tied behind your back. But I suppose in this day and age, ideals are no longer worth their weight. This saddens me greatly, especially when I think about how America was viewed not ten years ago; how it seemed that if the USSR could fall, anything could be done. America has squandered a great opportunity in its pursuit of the new unseen enemy.

History Can be a Bitch

2005-11-09T00:33:00.000-05:00

While I generally am wholeheartedly opposed to condemning people based on their ancestor's actions, I feel that this article is nevertheless quite interesting. As usual, I have turned to a British news source for American news. After all, the Bush political machine couldn't very well promote widespread media coverage of Prescott's Nazi links. Although I realise that this is an old article, I feel that it is worthwhile. Moreover, there has been little news the few days which has gotten my blood to boil. Maybe the Bush family is successfully setting that bar ever higher.

Overheard in the Lounge

2005-11-07T10:42:00.000-05:00

A dear and treasured friend of mine overheard me bitching about Hummers and my views on people (outside of military personnel) who drive them. He walked over, and said, "let's satisfy the NRA as well. Let's pass a law which says that we can shoot at anyone driving a military vehicle. Oh, and can we shoot at PT cruisers while we are at it?!".

Meet and Greet with the Office of the Secretary of Defense

2005-11-03T22:12:00.000-05:00

It would seem that my last posting has attracted the attention of the DOD. They have taken five looks at this blog since "Telling Us What We Already Suspected" was published. I am only sorry that such a poorly written piece was what attracted their attention. But really now, does the US government not have anything better to spend tax payers' money and government resources on?!
This is akin to the question found on many visa application forms which asks the alien whether (s)he has ever been trained in chemical warfare so as to ascertain if that alien is a potential "terrorist". Anyone who is actually liable to carry out an act of terrorism (and terrorism is an action, not a person) is not going to answer that question truthfully. Likewise anyone who is a security threat to the US is not going to advertise their plans on a blog. They should only be so lucky to only have bitter, sarcastic law students to worry about (I should mention that those adjectives describe the whole of the American law school population).
Oh, well. Happy reading, Big Brother. I wish I had your job.

Telling Us What We Already Suspected

2005-11-02T22:06:00.000-05:00

To your average, quasi-conscious person, the contents of this Washington Post article won't seem shocking (although it is outrageous to think that a "civilised country" feels the need to employ such tactics, to be sure). Therefore, for those of you in the know, I suggest you don't even bother reading this rather drawn out posting. For the rest of you, or those of you who are just plain bored, feel free to launch into this rather lengthy text. One last disclaimer--due to this posting's length, I have not proof read for clarity and the like. My apologises. I am lazy.
Despite the fact that the facts presented in this article are either common knowledge or should be common knowledge for those persons in possession of that oh-so-rare commodity that is common sense, there are parts of the article that I would especially like to stress. This is the case all the more so since in both IBT's and Int'l Law we have been discussing when American courts have jurisdiction over actions taken in foreign sovereign states by those foreign states, and US and non-US citizens. To put the relevant rule rather bluntly (if not in an overly simplistic fashion, which completely dismisses the problems of subject matter and personal jurisdiction for the moment), US courts have jurisdiction over the actions of US citizens. Therefore, if a US citizen commits an illegal act in a foreign state, (s)he can be sued in a US court, unless they can raise, for example, an act of state doctrine defense (for you non-lawyers, this means the big, bad foreign sovereign state made me do it). And now we get to the crux of the issue:

Vice President Cheney and CIA Director Porter J. Goss asked Congress to exempt
CIA employees from legislation already endorsed by 90 senators that would bar
cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoner in U.S. custody

I just wish that Congress, instead of "being concerned" about such issues arising out of the CIA's "opaqueness", would actually move affirmatively to stop them. This actually harkens back to my most recent days across the pond. One of the first bold statements my law professor made to us is forever stuck in my mind: not only are human rights and democracy not necessarily compatible, but also the limitations on civil liberties which take place within the framework of a human rights document may be seen as promoting the very civil liberties it curtails. Thus, censorship, torture, internment and the like become consistent, rather than inconsistent, with human rights. Although this statement may be a great deal to process all at once, I will not go into detail at the moment why this actually is the case (although if someone reminds me, I will write a post explaining this and similar concepts which have been floated in the human rights and law on terrorism fields).
Ah, but alas, it appears that I have once again digressed on only a somewhat related tangent. Turning back to the article, my next issue is with the following statement:

Although the CIA will not acknowledge details of its system, intelligence officials defend the agency's approach, arguing that the successful defense of the country requires that the agency be empowered to hold and interrogate suspected terrorists for as long as necessary and without restrictions imposed by the U.S. legal system or even by the military tribunals established for prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.

This once again proves that although human rights may be the trump card of international politics, it is no match for the power embodied in two simple words: national security. And then we have the following paragraph:

Since then, the arrangement has been increasingly debated within the CIA, where considerable concern lingers about the legality, morality and practicality of holding even unrepentant terrorists in such isolation and secrecy, perhaps for the duration of their lives. Mid-level and senior CIA officers began arguing two years ago that the system was unsustainable and diverted the agency from its unique espionage mission.

Why the morality of these actions is even up for debate is beyond me. To me, it seems pretty cut and dry that these actions, regardless of their purpose, are immoral. Holding someone in detention indefinitely and perhaps torturing them seems to fall squarely under the "immoral deeds" category, if not also under the category of illegal acts. But then again, what do I know--after all, I am just another tree-hugging, criminal-cuddling liberal, and we all know how people like me really just support the terrorists and would plant dirty bombs all over the country if we only weren't so stoned (oh, what's that I hear? Republicans abuse prescription drugs, among other drugs? It's not just the lefties?! Shock--But again, I seem to have gone off topic).
I am thankful that at least the CIA recognises the fact that their actions would not only be considered illegal in the United States, but also in the host countries. And...

Yet CIA interrogators in the overseas sites are permitted to use the CIA's approved "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques," some of which are prohibited by the U.N. convention [Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment] and by U.S. military law. They include tactics such as "waterboarding," in which a prisoner is made to believe he or she is drowning.
What "surprises" me is that the CIA is given even more leeway than the military (which, judging from the torture scandals, has been given quite a long leash). These CIA facilities exist in addition to the practice of rendition--meaning that although the US sends some of its terrorism suspects to countries such as Egypt and Jordan with a list of questions it wants answered, the US likes to every now and then do its own dirty work. For the record, these countries pay at least lip service to their disapproval of torture, and claim that they no longer use such methods to interrogate prisoners. Human rights groups, however, beg to differ.
As the White House has permitted the CIA to brief the House and Senate intelligence committees, Congress cannot claim it is ignorant to these gross violations of international law. And yet, for fear, I suppose, of failing to appear "strong on terrorism" they are willing to in essence sentence these prisoners to a living death. On a slightly different note, I am sure what the Washington Post is referring to as Eastern European countries throughout the article are in fact Central European countries (the term "Eastern European" having been applied to them at the onset of the Cold War to starkly differentiate them from "the West"). While I am at it, I should also explain that a nation and a state/country are not one and the same. A nation is something akin to an ethnic group. It does not imply the existence of a territory or a government. I am also mildly amused that the US saw "Eastern Europe" as more trustworthy than Zambia.
At least officials are cognisant of the fact that they have belly-boarded down the slippery slope, as evidenced by comments such as:

"The issue of detaining and interrogating people was never, ever discussed," said a former senior intelligence officer who worked in the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, or CTC, during that period. "It was against the culture and they believed information was best gleaned by other means."
However, these observations seem to have no effect. What we have seen since September 11th is simply an accelerated version of how other state have implimented "counter-terrorism" measures. Moreover, the original plan adopted by the CIA according to this article (ie assassination) was an action that was discarded in the 1970's after one too many fiascos. Worryingly, suspects were spared this fate not because of the illegality of such actions, and the repugnance attached to execution (if I had my druthers this sentence would end here but since this is the US we have to go one step further) without trial. Moreover, the CIA only became concerned with the "well-being" of detainees after they were dying under the conditions in which they were held. This was something that the CIA, arguably, had no control over, as they were being held prisoner by allied warlords (and what a good idea that was...).
I am also disturbed at how, at every level of the military and government, no one is held accountable for their actions. Take the example given by the Washington Post as an indicator:

In November 2002, an inexperienced CIA case officer allegedly ordered guards to strip naked an uncooperative young detainee, chain him to the concrete floor and leave him there overnight without blankets. He froze to death, according to four U.S. government officials. The CIA officer has not been charged in the death.

At least some judicial action was put on display, albeit aimed lowly ranked soldiers, after the Abu Ghraib scandal came to the fore. This is not to say, however, that I am so naive as to believe that other such actions have not been carried out by the US armed forces, or that where such actions have been carried out without the public's knowledge, the soldiers involved haven't completely escaped prosecution.
Although I do not feel the need to comment on the following statement, I do not feel that I can proceed without quoting it:
The CIA pulled out when U.S. courts began
to exercise greater control over the military detainees, and agency officials
feared judges would soon extend the same type of supervision over their
detainees.
In short, I find this very disturbing. I believe that the same laws and principles which govern prison facilities within the United States should apply to US prison facilities without the United States. Similarly, I will present yet another example of the slippery slope without commentary:
The CIA program's original scope was to hide and interrogate the two dozen or so al Qaeda leaders believed to be directly responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks, or who posed an imminent threat, or had knowledge of the larger al Qaeda network. But as the volume of leads pouring into the CTC from abroad increased, and the capacity of its paramilitary group to seize suspects grew, the CIA began apprehending more people whose intelligence value and links to terrorism were less certain, according to four current and former officials.
The original standard for consigning suspects to the invisible universe was lowered or ignored, they said. "They've got many, many more who don't reach any threshold," one intelligence official said.

I would finally like to say that I am deeply saddened by how the US has reacted to September 11th. It's actions have been irresponsible, to say the least, and have had profound effects worldwide which have set international law back at least fifty years. I have much more to say on this topic, but I will refrain for now.

Lights Out

2005-11-02T18:01:00.000-05:00

A little over halfway through the Manchester United-Lille Metropole match today, the lights went out in certain section of Our Law School. I didn't think much of it (although it did make using the loo quite an adventure), and continued watching the game, and later reading IBT. Approximately two hours later, a woman in her late 40's, who I can only assume was sent by the administration, to tell us that since some of the lights were out, the school was unsafe and we were all to go home immediately. Now don't get me wrong. I have no problem with being ordered out of Our Law School. However, I do find it a little curious, to say the least, that the administration's reaction was so delayed. I should also mention that the majority of the school's lighting was still functioning. I really don't see how a few darkened lamps constituted such a grave danger. Again, not that I am complaining.

Two Peas in the Pod called America

2005-11-01T22:12:00.000-05:00

This is a small correction to my earlier posting "One Step Closer". Apparently, Hamm wasn't the original thief. American Apolo Anton Ohno put on quite the show, which resulted in Korea's Dong-Sung Kim not only being deprived of the gold, but also disqualified. Perhaps America should learn that if it can't play nice, it can't play at all. Then again, that is a tall order when the biggest kid in the sandbox also appears to be hard of hearing.
Perhaps I should also mention that ND tells me that the word "Ohno" acquired a pejorative meaning in Korean, having been transformed from a noun into an adjective. It came to mean dirty, unfair, stupid and/or messed up. For example, "what ohno behaviour" or "what an ohno-like person".

The Right to Free Speech

2005-11-01T21:28:00.000-05:00

I am very thankful for the right to free speech. Having said that, I'm not sure that it should be unlimited. For example, in the Grundgesetz [Germany's "Basic Law"] (otherwise known as their constitution), prohibits Volksverhetzung [hate speech] (especially when it finds its roots in Nazism), such as neo-Nazi propaganda (oh, and yet the NPD still survives, much to my utter displeasure) or the use of Nazi symbols. This prohibition, one must be careful to note, does not cover the use of, for example, Nazi symbols for educational, research or artistic purposes. Interestingly, the Grundgesetz seems to differentiate between the right to expression and the right to free speech. I am especially in favour of limiting the right to free speech along these lines when I receive emails such as the one ND sent to me about a white supremacist girl band called "Prussian Blue" (while I could link to any of a number of sites, I would be too ashamed to have my blog provide access to those pages).
And before anyone says anything, yes, I am ashamed and full of chagrin when I turn my attention to the Polish law on freedom of speech. I think it is pitiful that people in this day and age, in a country of Poland's standing can still be convicted, detained, or otherwise punished for insults to religious feeling (and mind you, by "religious feeling", I mean that of the Roman Catholic majority) or, alternatively, for insulting heads of state who are to be on Polish territory in the near future. (And please, no one should make the mistake of thinking that I like any aspect of Urban--he does nothing so much as to disgust me. And should anyone viewing this page not know me, my family is Roman Catholic, although I am an atheist. Therefore, I will say what I like about Roman Catholicism in Poland).

One Step Forward?

2005-11-01T20:34:00.000-05:00

I could hardly believe my eyes as I watched BBC news over a steaming bowl of udon soup. North Korea and South Korea have agreed to present one unified team at the Beijing Olympics and at the Asian Games. True enough, North Korea is known for backing out of agreements at the last minute (and in fact, talk of the two teams uniting has come up in the past to no avail), and there has yet to be an agreement on how the teams will be chosen or what flag will be flown. Nevertheless, this is quite remarkable when taken at face value. North Korea, true be told, probably has a lot to gain by currying favour with the South Korean government.
While it is easy to dismiss sports in general, when viewed in the context of attempts at reconciliation, they, amazingly enough, are quite powerful. One need not look back any further than to the cricket matches held between India and Pakistan. While relations between the two neighbours are still rocky, much progress has been made since that time. And what's more, there was little conflict between the Pakistanis and Indians who attended the match.
Likewise, the idea of Koreans on both sides of the line of armistice cheering for the same team competing in international events seems enheartening, and makes the goal of reunification seem that much closer (although it is still far, far in the distance).
Although I sincerely hope that this does not happen again, if America steals yet another medal undeservedly from under (in that case, South) Korea's nose, it will be interesting to see if both Koreas will react jointly (if this deal does in fact go through successfully) or whether once again, the North Koreans will lambast America, while the South Koreans, silently agreeing, allow their northern neighbours to vent their frustration.
ND, if I am completely off, please let me know, and I will publish my apologises and an explanation of why I am wrong.

Blown Off by The Strap

2005-10-31T21:17:00.000-05:00

The day had finally come. We have reached the case where a gay man was stopped on the border and was told by the border guards that he was inadmissible. I raised my hand, often resting it atop my head, as The Strap was most hesitant to call on me. As promised, I asked The Strap how the border guards ascertained that the LPR was a homosexual as during that time period, I had serious doubts that the gentleman had been broadcasting his sexuality for tout le monde to see because of the stigma that was attached to homosexuality at the time. The Strap turned to me and answered that he didn’t quite know, but that “he didn’t have to take a test, but I guess you know that”. Nooo… You think? Perhaps I should have called him on getting the facts of the case wrong after he lambasted us for not doing the readings (I had, as I am sure others had, but no one wanted to rescue his sorry person, despite the fact that he brought us KitKat’s in what I can only assume was a peace offering and attempt to raise our sugar levels to stave off our falling asleep).

The Miracle of Dresden

2005-10-30T22:53:00.000-05:00

I vividly recall the Frauenkirche from the time that I spent living in Dresden. That year was marked by a lack of funds to rebuild it. Nevertheless, the portion which had already been paid for stood proudly on the cobblestone street, while what appeared to be an archeological site was laid in plain view of the public directly adjacent to it.
I also remember being quite moved (her heart grew three sizes that day!) when one of my friends, a native of Saxony, emailed me a picture of the Frauenkirche (left) after its external structure had been completed. I had felt as though an important milestone had been passed, although I could scarcely tell you why that was the case. Today marks the Frauenkirche's official opening, and I, for one, feel compelled to congratulate the city of Dresden in particular, and Germany as a whole. Moreover, I am in awe of the feelings which must have overwhelmed those who were alive when the original Frauenkirche had stood in what was, undeniably, the cultural capital of Germany.
While there were those who lament its rebuilding, saying that it should have remained a memorial to the Dresden bombings and the senselessness of war, I believe that it was a necessary step. I think this symbolically represents a break with the past and a move towards a brighter future. I find that this is all the more noteworthy because the Frauenkirche lies securely in the former DDR. Importantly, a cross, recovered from the rubble of the decimated church, is prominently displayed as a silent reminder of what the post-bombing shell of the church had symbolised.

Just a Suggestion

2005-10-30T12:00:00.000-05:00

If the county wants me to fill out a Jury Qualification Questionnaire online, I suggest that the "link" to the questionnaire not lead me to sites such as Ebay, goodbazaar and MyShortTermLoan. Just a suggestion (which I happened to leave at the phone number they mistakenly provided me with).

You Know You're a Dork When...

2005-10-29T21:16:00.000-04:00

You can't quite remember the details of the War of the Roses, and so you spend the majority of your Friday night researching the topic. Incidentally, I never realised that the design on the back of the 20p piece incorportated the Tudor Rose (Henry Tudor, of the House of Lancaster, joined the White Rose of York with the Red Rose of Lancaster upon marrying Elizabeth of York).
The rest of the night, I might add, was spent listening to an interview of Mrs. Mubarak, (unrelatedly) how the Albanian mafia traffics women and the like.

Who's Who

2005-10-29T20:06:00.000-04:00

I don't know how, I don't know why, and for that matter, I don't know how they got my name, but apparently I am being considered for a spot on the who's who list of professional women. While I don't think that they quite looked into the person they are considering, it is no skin off my nose if they want to take a gander.

I Seem to Have Missed the Memo

2005-10-29T18:50:00.000-04:00

I know that I have been busy as of late, but I had no idea I was so busy that I would miss something as important as this! And here I had thought American thought of nuclear proliferation as a no-no. There goes that idea. It's great that America wants to rewards its "allies", but somehow I think that Shrub has once again failed to think things through because he thinks that giving India everything short of officially recognising India as a nuclear power is a bright idea. India will not so easily play the pawn in the US's China policy, if that is what he was hoping for. Let's get something straight: "India wants civilian help because the rules were working: it is short of uranium for existing power plants".
India has not only failed to put their nuclear industry under nuclear safeguards (which the NPT requires) but has also detonated nuclear weapons post-1978 (big surprise there--only a year earlier Pakistan had achieved independence). Under the agreement proposed by Shrub, India would get to decide which one of its nuclear installations would be classified as civilian, as opposed to military, and therefore which ones would be inspected by the international community (again, something that the NPT requires, although, admittedly, India hasn't signed on).
This of course begs the question, if we are going to completely disregard the NPT why only do it on a piecemeal basis. Israel and Pakistan also have nuclear weapons, and they have both been long-standing US allies (the US seems to claim that India's energy needs are greater and that therefore, they should be given greater leeway). For that matter, why not extend the favour to North Korea and Iran, who are attempting to build, or have already successfully built nuclear weapons. Hell, Hiroshima was such a blast that the Americans had to do it again at Nagasaki. Wouldn't it be so much fun to allow the world to join in on the fun? For that matter, this new policy might mean financial happiness for Argentina and Brazil. Brazil has already gotten a wink and a nudge from the US on its plan to build a uranium-enrichment plant. And hell, I am sure Venezuela wouldn't mind purchasing some choice nuclear equipment from Argentina. In fact, while we are at it, let's give every state a crack at the secret formula. Because, doncha know, that will bring peace and mutual understanding to the world.

Progress, but No Cigar

2005-10-28T21:25:00.000-04:00

Libby has finally resigned. However, I am not quite yet satisfied. I am hoping that this is only the first sacrificial lamb. If I had my druthers, Rove would be gone. He is just as liable for what happened (and may other things, I am sure), as yet he is merely "still under investigation". I am hoping that will translate into an indictment and a resignation. Somehow, I doubt it will.

We Play at the Gym on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays

2005-10-28T21:16:00.000-04:00

Pestilence and I once again managed to crack up those around us by our ridiculous exchanges at the gym this week. This time around, I was explaining my deep seeded hatred of the Flintstones; a hatred, I might add, which I developed and nutured since I first saw the Flintstones. Pestilence, with a look that spoke volumes, said, "you, communist". And so, in my very best exaggerated Russian accent, I turned to her, and retorted, "it iz bekos ve kommunists like steel, not rock". Now why is it that when I try willing people to fall off of their cross-trainers it never works?

FYI Shrub

2005-10-27T17:04:00.000-04:00

Just because open and vulgar cronyism and nepotism were a-okay in Texas doesn't mean that the same goes for the international arena. Apparently, the "king" doesn't have all his clothes after all.

Ahmadinejad Falls Back on Old Rhetoric

2005-10-27T11:54:00.000-04:00

As many of you undoubtedly know by now, President Ahmadinejad has told a group of students that Israel must be destroyed, which has sparked widespread protest (I suggest you read the recommended section of "Have Your Say" on the subject). While I most certainly don't deny that heads of state or heads of government should go around calling for the destruction of other states (least of all because the religion or ethnicity of that state is "evil"), I believe that Israel's call to throw Iran out of the UN meritless. Taking Iran out of the international arena would accomplish little, except, perhaps, deny the Western world one of the few mechanisms it has for ever so slightly influencing Iran and giving Iran a voice that does not require action to make that voice be heard. We really don't need to make the world any more factionalised. Some cynically say that a strongly worded letter, Europe's "most potent weapon", will be Europe's response. I am not sure that more is needed for this first, and I suspect (and hope) naive, outburst on behalf of Ahmadinejad.
First of all, while no Iranian senior official has publicly made such a statement in quite some time, I do believe it is common knowledge that anti-Israeli/Zionist/American rallies are still held. Moreover, he made his statement to a group of university students, each of which probably has their own, more or less fixed ideas on the subject. Not only was the statement not particularly new, but I also believe that one of many factors may or may not be involved. Ahmadinejad may be slightly naive as to how international politics function, and may not have been aware that his statement would have such an impact (although it is doubtful that he would apologise, as that would be seen as accepting Western criticism). Furthermore, Ahmadinejad may have felt more comfortable in the political arena by using the tried rhetoric which has been in existence since Israel declared statehood (and for that matter, since Jews started showing up en masse in British Palestine, buying much of the Palestinian land). Finally, I believe that Iran is a country composed of many intelligent individuals. It will not declare, or for that matter launch, a war against Israel. Ahmadinejad's role in the Iranian government is subject to the control of other governmental and religious organisations. Even if he were to desire this, I doubt the Council of Guardians or the Supreme leader would be enthusiastic to adopt this stance. Iran does not neighbour Israel. It borders both Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran might be trying to build/build up nuclear weapons, but Israel, from all signs, actually has them. Israel clearly illustrated to Iraq in 1981 what it meant to try to threaten Israel with nuclear technology. I would be surprised if Iran hadn't taken heed.
Taking into consideration that I know very little about Iranian politics, I would love it if someone would tell me I am wrong, so long as they tell me why (and hopefully provide me with insightful articles).

S&M

2005-10-27T08:29:00.000-04:00

It's not that this title isn't going to bring more porn seekers to my site, but c'est la vie (I suppose, although I feel that my mind hopes it's not going to be one of those continuing aspects of my life). As it turns out some unfortunate horny bastard found my site by googling for "punishment mother strap". It would seem that I am number 42 in line. The best part is that "the strap" in this case is my immigration law prof.

Chinese Backstreet Boys

2005-10-26T23:19:00.000-04:00

I found this little gem while perusing the Waiter Rant site. As luck would have it, one of his loyal readers has a site with almost everyone of their videos. Tiny, Pei, Miaoster, I am dying to know what is being said in the second to last video on the latter of these two sites (please watch it all the way through). As it were, these guys seem pretty popular, as is evidence my Radio 21's tribute to them. Again ladies, I would much appreciate some sort of translation. Good to know that I spent my Wednesday evening wisely neglecting Business Organisations. Oh, and lest you forget, I dug up (the original) Numa, Numa dance and song (Gary's fame has even spread to Wikipedia).

How to Make my Head Explode

2005-10-24T22:42:00.000-04:00

Attempt to translate a piece about the Polish judicial system from Polish to French, using both a Polish-French and French German dictionary, while listening to German radio voice overing the comments of Polish political analysts.

A Day in the Life of an Iraqi

2005-10-24T22:14:00.000-04:00

Strange as it may seem, this is the first quasi-political entry I had written on this blog. I, however, won't be getting into details. I merely urge you to listen what these Iraqis had to say to the BBC. I only wish that the majority of Americans could comprehend the following: the vast majority of people treasure the security of their families and their ability to provide for their families above the tentative right to vote for American-picked candidates or on the documents they draft, reluctant as they may be to voice this.
On a sidenote (which just happens to be completely irrelavant), I am sorely disappointed that Lech Kaczyński was elected the President of Poland, not least for his openly religious views. I would also appreciate it if the Western media would get it into their heads that his twin brother, Jarosław, isn't going to be the Prime Minister. At least the former-Communists are finally out of office. Thank goodness for small favours.