What Really Matters to Voters

Well, How Does It End?

I was talking with some guys on Teamspeak earlier tonight, and one of them found it necessary to share this link with the rest of us. The name of the site was 'cupgirls,' which I think might have been aka '2girls1cup.' I managed to get through about 5 seconds before having to turn it off, and I had to put off dinner until nearly 1am.

But just a few minutes ago, curiosity finally got the better of me and I decided I was going to endure through all of it. Yes, I am a glutton for punishment.

So in the final seconds, a voice from off camera asks the girls, "So, what do you think we should name the video?" And one of them finishes wiping her face and says, "The Aristocrats!"

Armed Civilian Saves "over 100 lives"

CNS News reported this today:

CNSNews.com) - Many people are expressing relief that a volunteer security guard used her own gun to stop a man on a shooting spree Sunday. "She probably saved over 100 lives," the Brady Boyd, the pastor of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, said on Monday. The female guard, a church member dressed in plain clothes, killed the gunman after he opened fire at the mega-church. Boyd said she "rushed toward the attacker and took him down in the hallway" as he entered the building. The shooting erupted around 1 p.m., at the end of a service, when 7,000 people were either inside the New Life Church or just leaving. "He was just walking and shooting," the Denver Post quoted one witness as saying. The gunman, still unidentified, shot at least eight people, killing two teenage sisters, the pastor said. The girls were 16 and 18 years old. Their father, also shot, is listed in father condition. The gunman is believed to be the same young man who shot and killed two people earlier the same day at a missionary training center in suburban Denver. In that case, the gunman opened fire, reportedly after he was refused permission to spend the night at the missionary center. The gunman was described as skinny, in his 20s, about 6 feet tall and dressed in black, police said. KUSA-TV reported that the gunman was wearing a "tactical helmet and body armor." The church's pastor said the New Life Church "prepared in advance" for a possible attack, after hearing about the shooting at the missionary training center.

First of all, I'd really like to know this woman's name, as her conduct puts her right up there with Liviu Librescu and Joel Myrick. She deserves some major recognition.

Second of all, I'd just like to take this opportunity to point out the absurdness of the argument we often hear from the "antis" about how having armed good guys (or girls, as the case may be) around will make things worse. All this talk about the danger of crossfires leading to more deaths is pure BS. The simple fact of the matter is that a bullet aimed at you is far more likely to kill you than a bullet aimed at someone else. Thus, if the perp is allowed to carry on with impunity, you're going to have more people get shot, and they will get shot in worse places. If you shoot back at the perp, sure, there are more bullets flying around in that moment, but they don't have "your" name on it they way the perp's bullets will, and there is also a very good chance that the whole incident doesn't last as long as the perp was counting on. Those "extra" bullets tend to incapacitate the perp (as in this case), or at the very "worst," pin the perp down, preventing him from effectively engaging other innocents.


Alternate Link (The CNS feed will probably be gone in a few hours.)

Now I have an excuse...

Full Link

A German research published in New England Journal of Medicine and Weekly World News said that men staring at women's breasts in fact prolong their lives with years.

"Just 10 minutes of staring at the charms of a well-endowed female such as Baywatch actress Pamela Lee is equivalent to a 30-minute aerobics work-out," said author Dr. Karen Weatherby, a gerontologist.

The team led by Weatherby was made up of researchers at three hospitals in Frankfurt, Germany, and found this results after monitoring for 5 years the health of 200 male subjects, half of whom were asked to look at busty females daily, while the other half had to abstain from doing so.

For five years, the boob oglers presented a lower blood pressure, slower resting pulse rates and decreased risk of coronary artery disease.
.
.
.
She said that this was as healthy as going to the gym for 30 minutes daily and prolonged a man's life by five years.

"We believe that by doing so consistently, the average man can extend his life four to five years." said Weatherby.

Unfortunately, I have no excuse not to study, so off I go....

Heller Made a Funny

One day, I hope that I too can crack jokes while petitioning the Supreme Court for Cert.

"Indeed, the whole point of enshrining certain rights in a constitution is to ensure that the liberties they protect not be subject to competing, evolving - and often, as in this case, misinformed - policy views of government officials. And if policy benefits could be invoked to ignore constitutional provisions delegating power to the government, this Court would soon be asked to adjudicate the existence of everything from the postal monopoly to the income tax."
(emphasis added)
District of Columbia v. Heller
2007 WL 2962912
Brief in response to petition for cert.

Nip/Tuck Made Me Google this....

(The part about pineapple juice)

So I thought I'd share what I found.

Super Spunk Smoothie

1 cup pineapple, fresh or canned
1 banana, frozen
1 cup apple juice
1/2 tsp ginger
1/2 tsp cinnamon
1/4 tsp nutmeg
1/2 tsp vanilla extract
2 TBS honey
Optional ingredients: 1 raw egg white, 2 TBS wheat germ, 2 TBS flax seed, 1 shot wheatgrass juice

Blend all ingredients in a blender until smooth. Drink immediately. Repeat daily for best results.

If we can't have them....

I'd love to find out what, if any, excuse these two ass clowns can give us that means they shouldn't be tried for treason. I'd also like to know what those parts were worth on the black market, since that sum is apparently all a soul or two is worth these days.

The Nerdiest Thing I've Done In My Life

I've combined the two nerdiest things imaginable into one huge amalgam of NERD.

But I think it's sort of funny.

The pictures are a little cumbersome for the blog, so I'll just link to the forum they're posted on.

Yes, It Is Child Porn

I'm really beginning to hate the media. Wait, who am I kidding, I'm way past beginning.

This latest rant is brought on by the Elton John fiasco involving a photograph entitled "Klara And Edda Belly-Dancing" that was seized by police because it was kiddie porn. John defends himself by stating that it's been exhibited in many countries, the implication being that it is art. Well, I don't know what the child porn laws are in Britain, but here in the US that is no defense, nor should it be. When it comes to laws suppressing expression, it shouldn't matter one whit what anyone thinks about the content. What does matter is almost unique to child porn--that a person who is unable to understand what he/she is getting into, and who therefore cannot consent, is being exploited to create it. And that's exactly what happened here.

But if you read the news reports, you'd think the police were just overreacting to something innocent. this article describes the photograph as "depicting two naked girls." Another article provided a bit more detail, mentioning that one of the children's "legs were apart." That's not really enough to make a judgment about whether the photo is exploitative, and the absence of any reference to anything worse suggests innocence. Obviously, since the press is aware that the photo is probably illegal, I don't expect them to post the photo in the story, but in lieu of that, they should at least provide enough of a description for the reader to be able to make an informed judgment. "We report, you decide," right?

Well, it's on the net for anyone who wants to find it (hopefully not for much longer), but I will not link it. But I'll fill in the details the press is leaving out. One of the girls isn't actually naked. She is, however, down to her underwear, and is standing over the other girl, directly over her face, legs apart. The other girl is completely naked, on her knees, spread eagle--completely and overtly exposed to the camera--leaning all the way back (essentially lying on her back, but with her shins tucked under her rather than being completely supine). Those are the facts.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out what's going on here. The kids obviously had no idea what was going on. The photographer, on the other hand, knew exactly what she was doing. John's defenders are going blue in the face yelling about how it's not sexual, not erotic, it's just innocent children playing. Well guess what, that's exactly what child porn is, because children don't any any sexuality, it isn't erotic to the (normal) viewer, and the children don't understand what's happening! The only question that matters is whether the children could have consented to having this photo taken. It's not a question of taste or artistic value. The answer is obvious.

I just hope US authorities go after the photographer, who is of course the real criminal. John's defense that it is widely regarded as art isn't relevant to whether it is child porn, but I think it has implications with respect to notice that are mitigating at least. It's not fair that he should be the one paying for this, or at least, he should not be paying the highest price.

The Women of BSG (The Most Awesome Trailer Ever!)

Well, not really a trailer. There is some new stuff in there though

Rednecks Have More Fun

"Water Skiing"




I think I need to try this--the Redneck Rocket Launcher!

Iran: A Prediction

If we go to war with Iran,
And If that war takes the form of a sustained air campaign directed against their nuclear facilities,
I offer the following prediction:

The effectiveness of our cruise missiles will be substantially impaired against high-priority targets such as air defense hubs, airfields, and the strategic objectives themselves (the nuke sites). This ineffectiveness will be due to local point defenses, such as the SA-15 (aka, Tor-M1), and to a lack of penetration of hardened targets. This ineffectiveness will also be limited by the Iranian military's resources and priorites; in other words, lower priority targets may not be well-defended and will be vulnerable to cruise missile attack.

The overall effect of this will be that manned aircraft will have to fly the sorties to take out high-priority targets early in the conflict, and that most targets eventually hit by cruise missiles will be those which could have been hit by a manned aircraft with little to no risk to the crew. Cruise missiles will not have fulfilled their strategic purpose.

Benchmarks of Success

With the testimony of General Patraeus and Ambassador Crocker taking place this week, I've become a bit of a news junkie once again. And inevitably, after forcing myself to listen to the talking heads, I get a little miffed with the crap that they spew forth.

There's plenty of talking points with reference to Iraq that I'd like to counter-spew on, but there is one that outweighs all others, and that is this nonsensical focus on these so-called "benchmarks."

Let me be absolutely clear on this point. There is only ONE benchmark that matters in Iraq. One, and that's it. And that benchmark is the legitimacy of the democratically elected government. That legitimacy is what Al-Qaida and opportunistic warlords are trying to undermine; to cause it to crumble and be replaced by something more to their liking. Success in counterinsurgency means preventing that from happening. All other goals in counterinsurgency are subordinate to this goal.

Yet, when the pundits spout off about the "benchmarks," there is no context--no reference how these supposed failures indicate that our strategy is failing. In fact, even the majority of the media covering the story don't even bother to tell you exactly what the benchmarks are. Well, here they are, on page 3 of this pdf.

The Iraqi government's failure to achieve many of these benchmarks is significant, to a point. But taken in context, they don't mean we're losing. This list is all about legislative progress... legislative progress expected of a parliamentary system in a time when the population doesn't even know for sure what sort of state they want Iraq to be! We Americans couldn't even get our first Constitution to work at all before we had to throw in the towel and start again, and to this day our Congress doesn't get much done. And that's without a war going on during the drafting and in a 2-party system! Yet somehow we expect the legislature in Iraq to crank out crucial law after law with all the efficiency of an assembly line? Get real... That isn't a sign that we're losing---it's NORMAL, especially under the circumstances.

To be sure, effectiveness of a government is important to establishing and maintaining its legitimacy; and this is especially true in cultures used to more authoritarian forms of government. The benchmarks do matter--but the way that matter is that they are a sign that could indicate that the people might become frustrated with the government and turn away from it. And turning away could simply mean electing different representatives, or amending the constitution to fix the problem. It isn't necessarily indicative of the rejection of democratic rule in favor of theocracy, or even the rejection of national rule in favor of breaking the state along sectarian lines. To evaluate our strategy, you need to look at other signs that factor into the one benchmark that matters--legitimacy.

Those factors are mentioned all over Ambassador Crocker's testimony, but apparently no one was listening. The gains in the security situation are reviving Iraqi markets and their economy. Local businesses are being simulated and employment is rising. Foreign direct investment is on the rise. 74 states have pledged economic assistance to Iraq. Oil revenues are being shared, even without the benchmarked legislation going through. Informal reconciliation is taking place with the reintegration of former insurgents into the Iraqi security forces--also without the benchmarked legislation on amnesty being passed yet. Most strikingly, the people of Anbar overwhelmingly rejected Al-Qaeda and volunteered to work with the coalition to remove them, and AQ is being broadly rejected overall. Al-Sadr has reigned in the Mahdi army in response to the backlash against the targeting of worshippers and Iranian meddling.

Not all signs are positive. Particularly troubling to me is the electricity situation (also mentioned in Crocker's testimony), the stagnation in the training of Iraqi forces (from General Patraeus's tables), and the polls indicating (1)that the Iraqi public considered life to have gotten worse during that surge; and (2) that the people were divided about 53-47% as to whether US forces should stay or leave (respectively). Those indicators say at least as much about legitimacy as the failure of the central government to enact certain legislation.

In the greater scheme of counterinsurgency, political gains should follow institutional and economic gains, and institutional and economic gains should follow military gains. The military gains are definitely happening; you'd have to really stick your head in the sand not to see that at this point. Economic and institutional indicators appear largely positive. Political gains are occurring mostly at the local level, while progress is lacking at the national level. With the new strategy in place less than a year, and the surge in full swing only a few months, it's very encouraging to see many second-order and some third-order effects already. The data at this point overwhelmingly indicates that the strategy is working.

Which shouldn't be too surprising. General Patraeus, after all, literally did write the book on counterinsurgency. Success is mostly a matter of taking back the initiative we gave away to the insurgency by having our heads up our asses when the occupation began. It would appear from the military situation that the initiative is ours, and the rest will flow from that.

You Can Never Wish Harm Upon Your First Love

Well, it now appears that the international community is buckling while Iran is more stubborn than ever. As long as our intelligence community continues to believe the purpose of Iran's nuclear program is the development of nuclear weapons, war is looking very likely. The most likely form such a war would take is an air campaign that would probably last 1-2 weeks.

Quite frankly, I'm horrified. But not because Iran can hurt us more in Iraq (they're already doing about all they can clandestinely; we'd clean their chronometers in open warfare so really things can't get any worse) and not because they have a fearsome air defense network (and they do). I just worry about the horrible atrocities that may be forced upon our aviators--some of the "newer" (but certainly not younger) F/A-18E crews, in particular.

Iran has a halfway decent air force. Most of its aircraft are obsolete. Some are top rate. I'm sure any MiG-29s sent up against us will prove to be worthy prey for our Hornets and Eagles, and the aviators and pilots (respectively) fortunate enough to have had the privilege of meeting the Fulcrum in battle and skilled enough to emerge victorious will come home heroes.

But what about Iran's Tomcats? We retired ours mainly because they were a bitch to keep flying. There is a good chance that nearly all of Iran's F-14s are simply no longer airworthy. I hope this is true of all of them; that they all died quietly in their sleep, gently drifting away. And to those that are still flying---please, please let them meet their end at the hands of a B-2, as if mercifully garroted while in their hangars in the middle of the night.

But not at the hands of our fighter pilots. It would be a war crime to ask one of our own to commit such an unnatural, heinous abomination. She may be wearing the uniform of the enemy--and it looks horrible on her--but she's still beautiful and still one of our own.
I know if it was a MiG-29 in that TD box, the warble-ey buzz of the heater in my ear would be the most joyous sound imaginable. But it pains me to think about what would be going through the heads of our aviators if they heard that sound while locked onto an F-14. It would be god-awful, blood curdling, nauseating, and worse--it would be hatefulness manifest in a compression wave. Because the very thought of a figure so beautiful, so heroic, being torn asunder, doused in flames, spiraling hopelessly toward the ground with all the grace of a wounded elephant, is hateful.

I don't think I could do it. I don't see how I could live with myself afterward if I had to. And I hope beyond hope that our finest are not put in that position.

Let her go gracefully.

Ann Coulter Just Isn't Funny Anymore

I have to admit, somewhat shamefully, that there was a time that I liked Ann Coulter. But then I read her first book... well, the first half of it anyways. I couldn't bring myself to continue. She's just so negative and abrasive. Not that there is anything wrong with trashing democrats, but her style is just so unconstructive that I don't find anything useful in anything she says. It's as if she feels that because her enemies get away with talking that much shit, that it's OK for her to do it. She has become what she beheld (as Cavil would say), and as such, is as worthless in public dialogue as the democrats she despises so much.

Henry Rollins has a much less polite way of saying this though. And much more entertaining. Be warned though, this video is NOT for everyone.

So what was all the fuss about, again? (Padilla)

If you haven't heard, Jose Padilla has just been convicted. By a civilian court.

See? The system works just fine. Sure, you may not be able to use some sources you would otherwise been able to, but that's a small price to pay to keep some semblance of the rule of law in place.

Seriously, that whole idea where the executive gets to declare anyone inside the US an enemy combattant and disappear him/her can NEVER be the way it works in this country. I don't know what the hell the administration was thinking, and I'm glad that the Court agrees. I only regret that the administration blinked and backed down before we could get a ruling.

It's sure not like the Good Old Days

Only a Jackass Would Delete this Scene

Free Love in Bloomington

So I was feeling like shit today [Friday] (the price I pay for getting drunk off 151 on a worknight), but I gathered up the will to drag myself off the couch and go to Hairbanger's. Great show--as always--and it was good to see the 0L's beginning to integrate with us. One thing about me though, is as much as I like good shows, I fucking hate crowds. I hate having the mob press in on me, and I hate it when people try to walk through me instead of around me while they're on their way to wherever. To me, the crowd is really one single entity instead of individuals. Unless, of course, you do something to stand out.

Halfway through the show, we moved up to close to the stage, and I started to get a bit more relaxed and into the mood. And, I started to notice a certain regularity in the incidental contact I was getting from the stern quarter. Hmmm. Worth a glance. So I quickly survey the scene. There's a dancing couple right up against my back and they're pretty into it. The girl is OK looking, and the guy is a dirty long-haired hippie in a tank top. Ew. So anyways, I evaluate the situation to be accidental, albeit repeated, contact from an apparently drunk girl. No big deal. And as the night goes on, I notice that others around me are getting "bumped" into as well, but I'm clearly getting the brunt of it, and the duration of the contact is getting longer. At one point, I turned around and made eye contact with her. She smiled and said something--I couldn't hear, but I assumed to apologize--so I just said it's cool and directed my attention back to my group and the band. But immediately after, she backed into me again. This continues for a few minutes, and the contact is lasting long enough that we are clearly out of the "bump" side of the spectrum and into the "grind" side. I'm slightly annoyed, but not really, because there are much worse things that could happen to me than having a girl grind her ass against mine. But it's awkward because I can't really reciprocate, because she's obviously with this dirty hippie guy...............

Girl grinding on me...not an accident...but still dancing with her date? Still dancing with the dirty hippie. Wait, hippie--

...And then it hits me.*




Ew.

So now I have to try not to wonder too much about why they apparently thought I was a comparatively good bet.

Sigh. Fucking hippies.

*To better illustrate this moment, recall the scene from The Hunt for Red October where Jack is shaving and thinking aloud, trying to figure out how Ramius intends to deal with the crew that are not defecting with him: "...they'd have to want to get off. How do you get a crew to want to get off a submarine? How do you get a crew to want to get off a nuclear sub---?"

Razor is coming!!!

Jack, I want to transfer a detachment of marines to Galactica, and I want you to hand pick them. Completely reliable. Completely loyal. Razors.

Resurrection Ship, Pt. I.

It's going to be very nice to see Admiral Cain again. And with a name like Razor, with the meaning that the term carries, it's going to be one hell of a ride. Apparently the episodes/movie/telemovie/whatever is going to span a rather large timeframe, but it seems obvious that at least some of it will be dedicated to the story of the Pegasus before it met up with Galactica. The Pegasus crew was interesting, to say the least. On the outside, they had the look of a well-polished, well-disciplined, professional military machine. But when you got right down to it, they were more of a barbarian horde than a military unit, in the sense that we use the word. The fabric that held them together wasn't discipline, duty, or honor. It was fear, and rage. Cain nurtured that emotion, and then directed it to suit her purposes...or what she thought were humanity's purposes.

My prediction is that Cain and Adama aren't going to be as different as we think they are. Both of them had to face a situation where they thought they would lose control, and they knew the stakes were too high to allow that to happen. Both of them resorted to manipulating the emotions of the people to give themselves a fighting chance. Adama chose hope--and he had to lie to create it. Cain chose fear and rage. Two sides of the same coin, really. The difference is that control through fear gives you a lot more latitude with the measures you can take before your leadership is compromised, and using rage requires there to be outlets to prevent that rage from compromising your own control. Not everyone wants to go, or is even capable of going, that far. Adama wasn't. Roslin wasn't. Cain was.

And of course, there was a price to be paid for that style of leadership. It cost them their humanity. But it's not an answer to paint the world in black and white and condemn Cain and the Pegasus for that, because--and this is what I love about Ron Moore--there is no right answer. In spite of how distasteful Cain was, the fact of the matter was that the fleet really was safer with her than without her. There is no way in hell that there ever would have been an occupation under Cain--because there wouldn't have been any democracy. We've been raised to believe absolutely in democracy, but the truth is that democracy led to the wrong result, and the consequences of that mistake were staggering, and could have cost everything.

I think Razor is going to continue to challenge our values and assumptions, and once it has torn down that facade, it's going to tell a very different story about how people have stepped up to face the challenges of war, replete with great triumphs and terrible costs (some of which we already know about...the Scylla comes to mind).

Now I just have to wait until November....

Yet Another Video Post

Natural Predation at its Finest

Sorry, no imbed allowed on this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g5BoU8dKZ4

This is just a great clip all around. It's got everything. An ambush. A takedown. A counterattack and reversal of fortune. And even a surprising little twist in the middle--too bad us soon to be lawyers couldn't help them sort it out, though. I really thought the lions had earned an a property right they could have sued upon....

Closer than I'll ever need to get

The most shocking thing about this besides how insane these guys are is how small the funnel appeared to be on the ground. I thought even these "ropes" were pretty big on the ground, but then again, this is the first video I've seen that was actually close enough to provide an accurate sense of scale.

PS: For anyone who wants to do this, please approach from the side or behind, not from the front. These guys were fucking DUMB.

Crappy Video.....Awesome Lyrics

Well, I was down in Southern Watch
Flyin' my F-16
When lead called for a picture
And AWACS called back clean
But I saw a contact on my scope
and it was runnin' hot
And although I wasn't targeted
I went ahead and shot
.
.
.
Now oil's a buck a barrel
And it's all because of me
'Cause I'm the motherfucker
That started World War III.

For Pete, Amanda, RJ, and Blake

The Rifleman's Insight

Without me, my rifle is useless.


Without my rifle, I am useless.

Heroes

One of the most aggravating things about colossal crimes is that the person least deserving of recognition is just about the only person who gets any. The Joel Myricks of the world deserve more credit than the Dylan Klebolds. Let's reverse the trend.

Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor, was a professor of engineering at VT. When the shooting started outside his classroom, Professor Librescu barricaded the door, preventing the shooter from entering the classroom as his students escaped out the windows. The perp fired through the door, fatally wounding Librescu. Let him be remembered.

The Mea Culpa: An Obsolete Ritual?

When this whole Imus thing started up, I didn't think it would be something that would get my attention. I don't have any particular interest in the show, and I'm not the least bit surprised that someone who makes a living off throwing insults around went too far. It was just one more case of someone making a major gaffe in public, pissing people off, and humiliating himself. Given that this was a racially-charged gaffe, it wasn't the least bit surprising that those leading the charge would not be satisfied by anything less than Imus' termination. What grabbed me were comments in a story to the effect that the public apology was becoming irrelevant in general. Two samples:

"I don't care about an apology," said Angela Burt-Murray, editor in chief of Essence magazine. "You're not a child on the playground. You're an adult who needs to take responsibility for his actions. And there need to be consequences."

This, to me, is an instant gratification culture gone mad. To Burt-Murray, I ask, What qualifies as 'taking responsibility' for the words one has spoken? In my mind, taking responsibility usually means righting whatever wrongs have been inflicted on others, and accepting the consequences you have created for yourself. When the wrongful act is speech, and when the wrong inflicted is offense, what means other than an apology is needed to right it? It's not like there is a physical injury to remedy by, say, paying someone's medical bills, or property damage to be remedied by replacing or repairing said property. And to the extent that the wrong inflicted is a harmful idea propagated through society, what remedy besides negating that idea is necessary? For most speech-related "offenses," a public mea culpa should right the wrongs caused.

Which brings me to consequences... Apparently, when Burt-Murray says "consequences," she means artificial rather than natural. After all, the natural consequences are the harms caused by the conduct, both to the individual and the injured. In this case, the consequences are Imus' humiliation, a loss of audience and revenue for his program, private offense, and, perhaps, a public harm flowing through the marketplace of ideas. Now, in the case that the offender is able to remedy the harm caused to others, what role do artificial consequences have to play? I argue none. The function of artificial consequences should be, to borrow economic lingo, to internalize externalities. If it was the case that someone committed a wrong upon others that s/he did not, or could not, remedy his/herself, then artificial consequences should be imposed to close the gap (E.g., an action in tort against someone who did not pay up). By forcing would-be wrongful actors to pay face the costs of their actions, the wrongful conduct is deterred. That should be enough. Going beyond that level of consequence is simply vindictive, and that's why this comment bothers me. It isn't about righting a wrong--by definition, it's punitive. And when the implied consequence sought is the termination of one's employment, the punishment quite simply does not fit the "crime," so this is outside the realm of deterrence. It's being done just to hurt him. It's anger, not reason.

Cohen was careful to note that there ARE times when apologies are meaningful. When you're in a fight, for example, and you say something hurtful at the height of passion, your apology means something.

Or when your apology has real meaning, such as recent official apologies for slavery by the Virginia Legislature and the North Carolina Senate.

Or when the person apologizing shows real, undeniable remorse and a clear intention never to repeat a similar offense again. Few people believe that about Imus, Cohen says.

This snip came after a few paragraphs about how meaningless public apologies are. The last part of this almost makes sense, but I question why it is only an "intention" of not repeating the conduct that is necessary. A meaningful apology to me is one that leaves the injured person with no doubt that the conduct will not occur again. After all, the recipient has an interest in preventing harm to him/herself, but has no interest in a 3rd party's mental state. With this criticism in mind, I'll now go to the beginning of these remarks.

The examples of meaningful apologies this guy gives are bunk. An apology for something done at the height of passion will be meaningless in most situations. Take Michael "Kramer" Richards, for example. Looking at his breakdown/rant, it's hard not to conclude that those were his true feelings that came out, and that he was suppressing them in public until the "real Kramer" broke through the shell. We don't consider him to be genuinely remorseful, because we think he really meant what he said. We also don't have any confidence that he won't engage in any racist conduct in the future for the same reason. Your typical domestic "fight" isn't much different--those are suppressed feelings coming out too. The speaker might be sorry about having said what he/she did, but a retraction of the statement itself would be a lie in the vast majority of cases.

And as for an official apology from a legislative body, all I can say is 'what the hell are you smoking?' How can the public remarks of any politician be understood to be 'genuine remorse' rather than political interest? How can any person be genuinely remorseful about something someone else did? What meaning does an assurance that something won't happen again mean when the people we did it are long dead, and the legal system that permitted it had been altered long ago? To quote an old chain letter, "he's not familiar with the problem."

As for myself, I think that the public apology deserves to have a role in our society, especially since so many of the harms society gripes about are emotional, rather than tangible. Emotional harms can't be remedied by compensation, nor can they be remedied by revenge. If an emotional harm is significant enough for us to pay attention, the best that can be done is for us to have an assurance that it won't happen again. Having a public apology to "dissect" for significance and sincerity is the best way to get that assurance.

(But as for conduct resulting in tangible harms, then yes, talk is cheap. Pay up.)

Doll Face

Doll Face

Too cool not to share. Even if it's a little cliche at this point, it's a really original way to send the message (at least I think so).

Buy the Sizzler, close the Straits

It's bad enough when your principal adversary develops a weapon that threatens your most important assets. It's even worse when that (former) adversary sells that weapon to likely future adversaries, and when similar weapons in development are likely to be widely exported. But when the Navy is unwilling to do anything to ensure that it can counter this threat at some point in the future, it's just beyond disturbing.

I'm absolutely shocked at this article, which states that the Navy has declined to allocate funds to develop it's own versions of these weapons to use in testing to develop a countermeasure. Apparently, they've got too much of a hard-on for their new shipbuilding projects to deal with the cold, hard reality of the fact that we are vulnerable now, and that we are becoming more vulnerable every year. Having a new carrier class or destroyer class won't change that fact... our enemies will just have newer, more expensive targets to blast away.

Misguided Outrage

In response to the sentiment being expressed by some on the blogonets that the fine American institution of drinking to excess at universities is to blame for the despicable conduct of one individual:



[For the record: To the extent that this is a response to Doug, it is limited only to the sentiment expressed by his rationale, and does not reach the issue of how he allocates his own resources.]

[For another record: spot the scene that shouldn't have been included and tell me what it is, where it's from, and why, and you win a cookie!]

[And for another record: I also object to the suggestion that people, in their ordinary social interactions, should be "lovable." What a bunch of peace, love, and happiness tree-hugging hippie crap! Oh, and so I don't disapoint those waiting for the Kevin Smith reference--you love the cock!]

So this makes sense to anyone stumbling in here, a "short" recap:

Steven broke Dizzy's nose by applying some kind of force (there's a dispute about whether it was a "punch," "hit," or something else (not that how it it characterized should make a difference to anyone but the neanderthals. See, e.g., comments 12-13.)) in an apparently drunken dare. Steven, instead of apologizing profusely and offering to pay all her medical expenses, made fun of Diz on her blog and on Facebook, which served no function other than to make himself look even worse and to piss off the person who is in the position to press charges and/or seek action from the law school administration.

Then, Doug overreacted and decided to use this one person's behavior as a reason not to throw a party this year--calling irresponsible drinking the "proximate cause" of the incident. Apparently, Doug forgot the "intervening human act" part of proximate cause from Torts, but I digress... Then, sensing that the time was right for even broader blame-slinging, Corey commented (and this is so ridiculous that I'll post it in its entirety)

Stop drinking. It is boring as hell. You are all smarter and more lovable when sober.

In general, this law school has disappointed my optimistic 1L expectations about student engagement with each other on problems of law, politics, and society. People were drunk at my orientation and I should have known then. I found hope in the few wonderful people I met on my way out the door so I stayed. (Even though not all of them did.)

All my friends have provided the counterweight that kept me here and kept me optimistic. And to be honest, the excessive drinking the rest of you did actually helped me, because see... I was studying and spending time with people I love instead.

But if people are going to hit each other and then get ugly over it, then I am done, out. May I have my diploma please?

And yes, this is moralizing, and might anger many. But maybe some moralizing is called for. People are getting hurt.

Peace and better luck next semester for those who have to stay.

Pete has already weighed in on this nonsense.

Words Fail Me

Please remain in your seats until the end.

Boston Follow-up

This is too good not to share.

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1741589

Boston: The Stupidest City on Earth

"So we've got a huge terrorist plot theory and a serial hoaxer theory. Top notch!"


Most of us have probably seen the headlines by now about how the Boston PD managed to mistake an [Adult Swim] guerrilla marketing campaign for a citywide terrorist bomb plot.

Yesterday, this was funny. You figure some stupid residents saw one of these things and called the police without pausing for a moment to think...and of course the police had to follow up on it at first. The punchline, of course, was that after they responded to the first "device," they didn't stop. These fucktards kept at it all day, shutting down the city and causing a major panic. As someone who wasn't inconvenienced by their fuckup and who doesn't pay taxes to them, this is hilarious to me. The fact that this same campaign was carried out in (I think) 9 cities makes it even funnier. (It's also solid empirical evidence that Boston is collectively stupider than those other cities.)

But by last night, they started calling this a "hoax." That's right. Not their mistake, but a hoax. Who are they kidding? American Heritage Dictionary defines "hoax" as "an act intended to deceive or trick." Was deception the intent? Is it reasonable, even for a moment, to believe that the marketers intended to promote their programming by making people think there were bombs planted in the city? Or might there be a more reasonable explanation, say, to get people asking about who the depicted characters were and thus increasing viewership? Of course not. So, there's one of two things going on here. Either these guys are SOOOOO dumb that they assume that because they thought these were bombs, that it must necessarily mean that the intent was for them to believe they were bombs (i.e., they're too dumb to realize that they're dumb enough to be wrong unless they were tricked), or to give them a little more credit, this is a deliberate CYA strategy intended to draw attention away from the incompetence of city hall and the PD.

And now this morning, it gets even less funny. These fucktards are going so far to cover for their own mistakes as to arrest and charge the two guys that posted the ads, and are planning on going after Turner as well. Charge them with what, exactly? Apparently, they are using this statute:

a) Whoever possesses, transports, uses or places or causes another to knowingly or unknowingly possess, transport, use or place any hoax device or hoax substance with the intent to cause anxiety, unrest, fear or personal discomfort to any person or group of persons shall be punished by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Which, appropriately enough, has this definition:

(b) For the purposes of this section, the term "hoax device" shall mean any device that would cause a person reasonably to believe that such device is an infernal machine. For the purposes of this section, the term "infernal machine" shall mean any device for endangering life or doing unusual damage to property, or both, by fire or explosion, whether or not contrived to ignite or explode automatically.

I've added emphasis to make the impropriety of this charge immediately obvious. First of all, there is an explicit intent requirement. Which makes sense, considering that the definition of hoax includes intent. And just as damning in my opinion, is the reasonableness requirement. There's no way in hell that a reasonable person would believe these ads to be IED's. You look at the BS that comes up in the news reports, and they mention that it had "wires," "circuit boards," and "batteries." Shit, so does my cell phone and my laptop. If I set one of those down somewhere, am I committing a hoax? Don't leave our old VCR for the garbage truck! That's a "roadside bomb hoax!" There are of course, at least two important ways to distinguish an actual explosive device from other electronic devices: the presence of explosives and detonators. A reasonable person would only believe an electronic device to be an explosive if he/she saw such a component (or something that appeared to be such a component). Of course, these ads had nothing of the sort. Still, I have to admit that people are fucking stupid and it's entirely possible that the court might get 12 people whose heads are up their proverbial asses. Even so, there is NO WAY they can get around the intent requirement. No good faith argument, no probable cause. And to me, that means if this doesn't get dropped, someone needs to be disbarred.

Cool video of the "suspects" setting Boston up the bomb.

Forging a Wold of Liberty Under Law?

I'm just going to post these excerpts from the Interim Iraqi Constitution (March 2004) without comment. They pretty much speak for themselves.

Article 13.
(A) Public and private freedoms shall be protected.
(B) The right of free expression shall be protected.
(C) The right of free peaceable assembly and the right to join associations freely, as well as the right to form and join unions and political parties freely, in accordance with the law, shall be guaranteed.
(D) Each Iraqi has the right of free movement in all parts of Iraq and the right to travel abroad and return freely.
(E) Each Iraqi has the right to demonstrate and strike peaceably in accordance with the law.
(F) Each Iraqi has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religious belief and practice. Coercion in such matters shall be prohibited.
(G) Slavery, the slave trade, forced labor, and involuntary servitude with or without pay, shall be forbidden.
(H) Each Iraqi has the right to privacy.

Article 15
(B) Police, investigators, or other governmental authorities may not violate the sanctity of private residences, whether these authorities belong to the federal or regional governments, governorates, municipalities, or local administrations, unless a judge or investigating magistrate has issued a search warrant in accordance with applicable law on the basis of information provided by a sworn individual who knew that bearing false witness would render him liable to punishment. Extreme exigent circumstances, as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, may justify a warrantless search, but such exigencies shall be narrowly construed. In the event that a warrantless search is carried out in the absence of an extreme exigent circumstance, the evidence so seized, and any other evidence found derivatively from such search, shall be inadmissible in connection with a criminal charge, unless the court determines that the person who carried out the warrantless search believed reasonably and in good faith that the search was in accordance with the law.
C) No one may be unlawfully arrested or detained, and no one may be detained by reason of political or religious beliefs.
(D) All persons shall be guaranteed the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, regardless of whether the proceeding is civil or criminal. Notice of the proceeding and its legal basis must be provided to the accused without delay.
(E) The accused is innocent until proven guilty pursuant to law, and he likewise has the right to engage independent and competent counsel, to remain silent in response to questions addressed to him with no compulsion to testify for any reason, to participate in preparing his defense, and to summon and examine witnesses or to ask the judge to do so. At the time a person is arrested, he must be notified of these rights.
(F) The right to a fair, speedy, and open trial shall be guaranteed.
(G) Every person deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall have the right of recourse to a court to determine the legality of his arrest or detention without delay and to order his release if this occurred in an illegal manner.
(I) Civilians may not be tried before a military tribunal. Special or exceptional courts may not be established.
(J) Torture in all its forms, physical or mental, shall be prohibited under all circumstances, as shall be cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. No confession made under compulsion, torture, or threat thereof shall be relied upon or admitted into evidence for any reason in any proceeding, whether criminal or otherwise.

(emphasis added)

Super Bowl!

Go BEARS!

That is all.

Ode to Alcohol

So as those who know me have surely noticed, alcohol and I have been having some relationship issues since finals ended. The results were troubling in that I crossed some lines that I normally don't, and much of that I don't remember. On the other hand, and to my surprise, it now seems I got away with all of it. Why? Some of it was because, really, it was the right thing to do anyways and I should have gone farther. Some of it was because it was considered appropriate or excusable in the spirit of the occasion. And the most inexcusable instance of my conduct was not remembered by the person who had to bear the brunt of it because--you guessed it--she was even more blacked out than I was!

Year in Review

Because I'm an unoriginal bastard.

There were a few significant downs, but for the most part 2006 was a surprisingly good year for me.

The year began with a new round of classes, most of which I found interesting. I even argued a little bit with my professors, granted I didn't gain much ground. I got harassed (and yes, that's a fair characterization) to seemingly no end to go to law prom, but I was an oak. I had a great time going out with some friends instead. After dinner had ended and I met up with the law prom crowd, I managed to permanently alienate a classmate with a remark that was--well, actually--perfectly appropriate for the situation. As the saying goes, "if she can't take a joke, fuck her!" However, other gaffes cannot be so easily dismissed, and I come to the realization that as a rule, if I get drunk, I will say or do something I regret. And I've been losing lots of potentially productive weekend afternoons to hangovers. At some point before spring (I think), I implement a new "1-night-of -drunkenness per week" rule. I'm not sure it's made a difference.

After a bit of back and forth about whether there would be legal work, I spent my Spring Break in New Orleans and Biloxi doing volunteer work. It was a great time, despite (or maybe because of) some awkward--yet very comical--moments, and I made a great new friend. Battlestar Galactica ended a rather disappointing second half to the second season with 3 amazing episodes in a row, ensuring that 7 months we had to wait for season 3 would be unbearable. Thank the lords of Kobol for the DVD's! So say we all!

I turned in finals relatively confident that I would do well, but ended up disappointing myself, but not terribly. The post-finals partying was much less intense than it was fall semester, but the smaller groups at the bars made for easier conversation and a much more pleasant time for me. I got a job at the last minute by sliding into a position that one of my friends traded up out of. Yeah, I'm a circling vulture, and I'm OK with that.

I ended up getting jerked around at the summer job, but managed to get some real work done at the end. I also get a new friend to argue politics and talk BSG with, so it's not a total loss. I discovered Falcon 4 and foresaw falling grades. At the end of the summer, I visited my brother in VA with my family. I left with some badly-needed motivation to get in shape and a Smallvile addiction I could probably do without. I also learned that one of my first law school friends would be transferring away.

Just as the fall semester was beginning, I lost my grandmother. She was pretty much the central pillar of the family. Thanksgiving and Christmas weren't the same without her, and never will be.

Fall semester proved to be the most difficult so far. All that crap I heard about the first year being the hardest was, well, crap. A lot of that was brought on by my own choices, though. My classes were generalist-type classes that I just thought should be under my belt, rather than classes in subjects I thought were interesting--with First Amendment law as the exception. I signed up for both moot court and journal, not because I wanted to do them but to make up for an otherwise unremarkable resume. (A friend who was on the journal last year even scoffed at my request for advice from her, knowing full well that I was going to sign up for the wrong reasons no matter what she told me.) Something had to give, and it ended up being the job search. I also saw a lot less of the bars, but with BSG on again, I still had my Friday night reprieve. As the semester wore on, exhausted and bored, my reading started to take a hit in addition to the job search. On the plus side, my new commitment to fitness actually went well, and I only found myself slacking when something major was due (moot court briefs, moot court/trial ad performances, studying for finals). I also managed to get my first paintball game in quite a while. An intense end of the year studying blitz ensured stellar performance on finals though (crossing fingers).

Winter break was awesome. After working hard, it was time to play hard. It started out with me and friend going through half a bottle of Patron Anejo together, plus some Dewar's on the rocks for good measure. The hangover was quite a bitch, though. There was more drunken craziness at Sara's going away party, although my DD bitched out and left early to get laid. (EDIT: My bitching apparently made her stay a bit longer than she otherwise would have). Some arrangements should be made in advance rather than sprung at the last minute--but oh well. I headed back home for pre-Xmas turducken, and ended the year right with the best New Year's Eve that I've had in years. It was a smaller group than I was used to, just two friends from HS and one of their SO's, plus some NU grads I didn't know, but a smaller turnout wasn't going to stop me after a semester like this! We pre-partied at my friend's apt to keep the cost down, and I managed to get trashed off hurricanes before we even left for the restaurant. And as luck would have it, my normal inability to interact with new people was trumped by the fact that I had a number of common interests with the "new" guys. I danced for the first time in years without the slightest hesitation, and I amazingly had fun doing it. I committed excesses for which, although I still have my doubts, I have been assured were considered consistent with the spirit of the occasion. And I got to stay with someone who whose irresistible majesty is matched only by her infinite patience. Either that, or I have a really, really great friend. Or both. ; )


To my friends and family, thank you, and I wish you a great 2007!