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!

Have I Gone Insane?

Today, I took Professor S. Williams' 24-hour take home test. Well, technically, I'm still taking it. I'm going to go to sleep after writing this, wake up, and then do some editing before turning it in. Anyways, here's a summary of my day:

1307: Picked up exam at S-Kern's office. I was reading the exam while walking to the library. Several other students could be seen doing the same in the hallways or just outside the law school.

1530: Finished outlining the first section of the first problem. This is what happens when you only study for two whole days instead of three or four (two days lost to drinking/laziness/hangovers).

~1700: Went to Jimmy Johns to pick up lunch. Ate lunch in the lounge while researching parts of the doctrine I didn't know and outlining the final sections of the first problem.

1826: Received text message from Nicky asking me to come to Nicks. Unfortunately for her, I belong to Swilliams right now. She can have sloppy seconds once Swilliams is through with me. She's probably fucking with me though, since the Facebook newsfeed is anouncing to the world that I'm doing a 24 hour take home test.

~2200: Finished second problem. Went home to have dinner. Saw a message on AIM from Butcher "commanding" me to go to Jungle Room. Sigh. Rittle left me a message about how he no longer liked "Suzy." Exhanged brief banter. Ate dinner while researching all the theory I didn't review that I needed to know for the last question.

2300: First signs of mental exhaustion setting in. I feel the call of the internet, Falcon 4, Rise of Nations, Battlestar Galactica, porn, more food, and sleep distracting me from the task at hand. I keep reading.

2400: Finished the "reasearch" phase of the last question. Noticed that the library would be open til 2. It's worth it. I stop at the Circle K to get a Polar Pop. Mmm. Caffiene.

0005: A law student walks by the window outside the library. He holds up a Blackberry with the words "Come to Kilroys" displayed on it. I flip him the bird.

0100: Received incedulous looks from more passerby.

0155: Time to clear out. As I'm gathering my shit, another passerby outside takes notice. He exclaims "no way" and something else as he walks by.

0158: As I leave the library, I notice another student on the leather couches outside the library. A thought occurs--if I go home, I'm not going to be able to concentrate anymore. I ask the librarian if the whole building is closing at 2. Nope. I park on the couches.

0330: Finished!

I think most objective observers outside the law school would find my behavor today to be bat shit crazy. Most law students probably understand the concept of 24 hours that determine the entire grade for a semester, but that's not much consolation. We may all be crazy, and I certainly didn't help change the anyone's mind on that count.

By this time tomorrow, if you need me, check the emergency rooms. I'm going to restore some balance in my life, and by balance, I mean alcoholism and sloth.

The results are in!

It's true, I'm evil.

You scored as Dr Gaius Baltar. You have betrayed humanity, for a blonde. However you'd rather people learnt to just get past that. After all, you never meant wipe out the human race. Luckily you are cleverer than everyone else, so no one will ever know. Even though they look at you with suspicion behind their eyes. Dr Gaius Baltar 88% Capt. Lee Adama (Apollo) 75% Lt. Kara Thrace (Starbuck) 69% Commander William Adama 50% Tom Zarek 44% President Laura Roslin 38% Lt. Sharon Valerii (Boomer) 38% Number 6 25% CPO Galen Tyrol 19% Col. Saul Tigh 6% What New Battlestar Galactica character are you? created with QuizFarm.com

I'm rather surpised I'm more Apollo than Tyrol or Tigh, though.

Election Day

So I managed to decide on the local issues based on a few websites and newspapers. Beh, not that it's what's important this time around. Iraq is really all that matters.

If the Dem's manage to take control, they better not pull the purse strings too tightly. Nothing could possibly be more important right now than for the ordinary folks over in Iraq to know they can count on us to be there for them. We need their help, and that's not going to happen if they believe that we'll pull out and leave them at the mercy of the Islamofacists. Why is it so hard for us to build up a reputation for reliability?

I guess we'll get the government we deserve one way or another... but the Iraqis will be getting the goverment we deserve as well.

Woke up on the Wrong Side of Poolside

I'm pissed today. Someone apparently thought it would be a good idea to mow lawn/leaf blow/shred mulch/whatever at 0700 hrs this morning, right outside my fucking window! They kept at it for an hour. Do these fucktards not realize that in a college town, people have (gasp!) class in the fucking morning and might need to sleep?

Apparently the noise ordinances in this town suck monkey balls. (I'm assuming that noise is allowed starting at 0700 since that's exactly when the fucktards began their work.)

Moot Court Round 2

It wasn't an argument. It was a gang-rape. Two of the judges filled me out like an application. And every time I started to answer a softball question from one of the gentler judges, the aggressive two would cram my mouth with some more crap that I've never thought of. And if I tried to get back on point, they'd talk over me, forcing me to shut up to be deferential (which I didn't always do quickly enough).

For rebuttal, I had been writing down points the judges were making to try to salvage the case, but when I got up there, the judges prompty put me on my partner's issue and kept me there.

So basically, I need to figure out how to transition onto the shit I need to talk about without being undefferential when doing so. Fuck!

The last round better not be like this. That is all.

Battlestar Galactica Inspirational Pics

That last one's delightfully on-topic, eh?

A follow up

First, a housekeeping note.
From this point forward, the use of the slang contractions substituted for the plural form of "you" will not be tolerated on this blog. EVER. Comments not conforming to this rule may be edited or removed, and the poster may be permanently banned. After all, I did say it's important to have standards.

So wow, this thing really blew up over at Pete's. 26 comments last time I looked, plus a bunch more entries over at Dizzy's, including one today. Not to mention some obnoxious rif-raf (probably linked from CDL) who managed to demonstrate a lack of brains (i.e., use of ad hominem attack) and balls (i.e., anonymous) at the same time. Usually us guys make the mistake of using one of those at the expense of the other, not have a lack of both, so I salute you, Mr. Boneheaded Anonymous Commenter, for lowering the bar for the rest of us.

Well, I certainly didn't expect that big of a response. I can't go over all the stuff on both sites in detail, but I do think I need to respond to the gist of them, because it seems like the commentary goes well beyond what I was saying. So, I write this to clarify my position--which, I believe, shouldn't be terribly controversial. After all, most of the gripes that have been conveyed I'm in perfect agreement with... and they don't go to the point I wanted to make (although perhaps they might go to some of Pete's instead).

So, to precisely restate my objection that started this, it is that blame was placed upon CDL for missing a hint and continuing from there. Missing a hint cannot be blameworthy conduct. It is not even "conduct" at all. One cannot decide whether one will fully comprehend something or read between the lines. One can certainly try, and one may even be right most of the time, but on those occasions when one does not, it is not blameworthy. It is a failure of performance, it is not a bad choice. The choice to communicate in hints rather than directly IS a choice. The speaker has assumed the risk of not communicated, and by virtue of that choice, bears the responsibility if that choice leads to non- or mis-communication. You cannot equate a failure of performance to a bad decision. That would be like saying that a pedestrian hit by a drunk driver is as guilty as the drunk driver because he didn't jump out of the way in time. Nor can you say that the listener has assumed a risk of miscommunication by placing him/herself in a broader social context; as that would be the same as blaming the pedestrian for going outside that day.

This isn't to say that the partner from CDL did anything wrong. In her case, the hint preceded a direct shootdown. In my book, she did everything right. CDL made an ass of himself by continuing after the direct shootdown, and for that he certainly is blameworthy, not the partner.
Moving on to the comments and new posts... I can't stress enough that my argument is very narrow and is a moral argument about decisions, assignment of blame, and assumption of risk. Inferences of what I would say beyond that are probably--and have been--wrong. So please hold all the "So you're saying that..." stuff, because a lot of it probably goes beyond that context. The only way my argumemt went beyond this was when I also stated that I would be pissed if someone thought I was communicating something I wasn't and that I bore the consequences... This is not an argument against communicating in hints, it is an argument against assuming that what you know what a hint was and acting on it. By deciding to act on imperfect information, the actor has now assumed a risk and is blameworthy for the consequences.

I don't believe that people can ever expect 100% direct communication all the time or anything even close to that. Hints and subtleties are, and will always be an important part of human communication, and there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that. The better people can use and pick up on these things, the better their social interactions would be...when it works. But, what's important is to remember that this information is imperfect. So, by all means, hint away, and try to read them in others. But, keep in mind that if you are communicating indirectly, or assuming that you've read such a communication yourself, that YOU bear the moral burden for the consequences if you're wrong because YOU had the power to either say it directly or ask a direct question. The other person didn't have a choice in the matter.

I hope it's obvious that this applies to men as well as women. All those instances where guys assumed that a girl would pick up a hint and then blamed the girl for that... those guys are wrong, not her. All those assholes in clubs that are assuming that someone is flirting without knowing and acting on that assumption with aggressive grabbing and whatnot... they're wrong, not her. But at the same time, the girl who turns down an advance by saying she's busy instead of not interested, implying that she'd accept the date another time, eventually leading to an embarrassing situation later on that would have been prevented but for her decision to rely on his picking up the hint... she's wrong, not him. And the same for things that happen within an existing relationship, where the consequences are much, much higher.

Finally, I want to address the "telemarketer" argument. As I've said above, hint away. Hinting can get rid of a lot of unwilling advances and is probably not only a good idea in the bar/club situation, but is quite necessary. It does not solve the imperfect information problem, though, and cannot be expected to (although it does help). But I fundamentally disagree with the idea that one can be out somewhere and have an entitlement not to be propositioned in some way. Quite the opposite, I think everyone has the right to ask and everyone has the right to decline. This is quite different from what might be appropriate of course, but appropriateness doesn't count for much and in a lot of cases really shouldn't. Of course, you and I are still free to think less of people that do inappropriate things, especially when it does count for something.

I stole this from Kristina: follow up

My computer has been replaced, and I was able to recover nearly all my data from the old one!

Here are the answers to the songs from last fracking semester!
1. The Donna's - do you want to hit it?
2. Avril Lavenge - complicated
3. MB20- real world
4. Godsmack - bad religion
5. Queen - we are the champions
6. RATM - No shelter
7. Linkin Park - Breaking the habit
8. Aerosmith - Something's gotta give
9. Devildriver - Digging up the corpses
10. Kittie - Charlotte
11. Lords of Acid - the dude
12. AFI - Death of Seasons
13. Edna's goldfish - purple
14. Mest - What's the Dilio?
15. Mephiskapheles - Saba

Shit, I don't even know who Devildriver is or where I got it...but that's what it played!

An Old Gripe

I won't pretend that this entry is insightful or original, but both genders are guilty of forgetting some obvious things, which means repetition is unfortunately necessary.

A few weeks ago, one of my friends here in Bloomington got me interested in a law blog by Dizzy. The blog is mostly about relationship gripes, and manages to entertain while also giving us guys useful intel about how "the other side" is thinking. Of course, by subjecting myself to a stream of complaints about men, I'm inevitably going to run into things about the way women think and/or act that make me want to bitch back. Things such as this post and this post.

The first post is about a guy who got his hopes up about being able to take a colleague home, and since he was about to be leaving the job anyways, he figured he had both good shot of getting a yes and not much to lose if he got a no. He took the shot, she apparently tried to gently wave him off, he missed the hint, she then directly said she didn't think it was a good idea, and he then proceeded to completely air his feelings, guaranteeing an embarrassing and awkward time for all parties invovled. The guy here is clearly a bonehead for disregarding the direct shootdown; the woman there did just fine. But, it wouldn't have been good enough for Dizzy if he stopped at "I don't think that's a good idea." Dizzy is griping that he didn't catch onto the fact that she "had clearly rejected him" from the beginning with the hint--as if the situation that resulted would still have been his fault even without the direct rejection--and it's this expectation that has pissed me off for years.

It isn't because her interpretation of what the woman said is unreasonable. Not only was it reasonable, it was right, and her reasoning for why the woman said what she said makes perfect sense. But, there isn't anything "clear" about a hint or any statement that requires reading between the lines--as a matter of definition. (And remember what our LRW prof's keep telling us, if you need to use words like "clearly" in making your argument, it's precisely because it's not clear!!!) Whenever people look beyond the face value of words, there is always room for different interpretations. What interpretations are more reasonable depend on the listener's own point of view, experiences, biases, mental processes, etc. It also depends on the speaker; different people might even have spoken the same words for different reasons. For example, from my own point of view, if a girl I'm attracted to asks me if I had plans after the current engagement or if I was just going home, I might very well say that I was tired and planning on going home even if I was open to the idea of going home with that person. This is because (1) it's just plain true, (2) the other given choice of having plans already pretty much precludes a hookup, if that's what I want (and still true), and/or (3) I might need to deflect any inferences that the reason I look the way I do is because I'm in a bad mood when I'm actually doing fine; I've just been in that noisy bar too long and I'm coming off my buzz, and nothing would please me more than to go someplace quieter where I can be more comfortable, both physically and emotionally (and again, true). I know you're saying that one's crazy but that really is the way I usually feel after the 2 hour mark. I might say 'drained' instead of 'tired' though--whatever. The point is if you get me in a better environment, I'll perk up. We can argue back and forth about the reasonableness of different interpretations, but it doesn't matter if the listener is right or wrong or even reasonable or unreasonable--especially because a person under that sort of emotional stress probably can't think rationally in the first place! What matters is that because our minds work differently, we will inevitably reach different conclusions--and that's assuming the listener even tries to read between the lines at all. Because of this, when you try to communicate in hints, you assume the risk of the hint not being communicated. Period.

And don't give me any of that crap about how you're using hints becaue you don't want to hurt his feelings. That's a cop-out, or at best, a sign that you've forgotten a lesson you should have learned by now: that at least to us, there are far worse things than being rejected. We're mentally prepared to take "no" for an answer (well, not Bonehead apparently...), but we will be justifiably pissed off if we end up having to deal with a greater emotional harm later down the road that could have been prevented with a little up-front honesty.

What's more is that I'd be fucking pissed if I found out I missed a golden opportunity because someone tried to read something into something I said that wasn't there. (It's happened before, except by people far more important than casual hookup candidates.) Since I don't want to bear the costs of misinterpretations, I deal with my friends honestly. Naively, I suppose, I expect the same from others. I'm quite sure that if it had been me in the Bonehead's position, I would have missed the hint too, and while I do fault myself for some degree for being dense on such matters, I do fault the speaker more for making the choice to communicate ineffectively. And in keeping in line with the tradition of the "advice" motive of Dizzy's blog (not to imply that advice by me to women is as useful as hers to men, of course. I have no such delusions), I'll add to this rant that if I can't trust someone to say what she means and mean what she says, it's unlikely that I'll be interested in her. It's inconsistent with my belief in relationships being based on mutual respect, and probably also a major reason why I'm single.

The second post is along the same lines. Dizzy graciously offers us advice on how to get laid--thanks!--and offers us some useful intel: that what women really want is someone who's great in bed. Well shit, that's encouraging, because after hearing about the stupid nitpicky stuff that I hear women criticize people about it's nice to hear that the key is actually something that we can expect to matter and that we have some control over. Besides, I've always had much more trouble being invited the first time than I have being invited back for a second. ; ) So far, so good... But then my hopes are dashed, because I then find out that we are being evaluated on this based on the degree of control we're willing to give up in social situations (witholding personal secrets, not exerting influence on other's decisions, deciding on a partner instead of "keeping one's options open," etc).

First off, if there is any relationship between a willingness to give up that sort of control (some of which reeks of tired gripe about committment) and "performance," it's very attenuated. I'm willing to give Dizzy this much though--someone with a personality that is amenable to accepting the vulnerability that comes with "losing control" is also going to be more self-confident and more willing to let go of inhibitions, and will therefore be more passionate. (If I'm wrong about how the dots are connected, please correct me, because I don't want to set up a straw man.) The problem with this is that personality does not tell us much about actual behavior. Behavior is situation-based. It's entirely possible that a person who does not display vulnerability-accepting behavior in a social context is quite willing and able to cut loose in a more intimate setting. I just fear what else is on that list that wasn't mentioned, because really, I want to know if I'm accidentally sending any messages I don't know about!

This is actually another one of my old relationship gripes. I call it "the test." As in, your girlfriend (or potential gf) isn't sure about something about you, and tries to approach the problem quasi-scientifically. She thinks up a hypothesis and a way to test it--if you do X, then you must be/think Y. The problem is that the variables are never controlled and the whole thing is invalid. One uncontrolled variable here is the social context, and it renders the analysis invalid.

I have to admit though, that I can only be so frustrated with this last one, because I'm guilty of doing it as well. One of my main criteria is my own estimate of the quality of the "experience," and I can't say I have anything reasonable to base it on either. My hypocrisy goes only so far, though. I won't state flatly that a woman who does X or doesn't do Y is going to suck. I won't go farther than "probably," and I'm acutely aware of the fact that I've been surprised before.

Leadership Requires Moral Clarity

The President has decided not to meet with Iranian President Ahmadinejad, and apparently not to accept his invitation to a debate as well. That didn't come as a surprise, but does that mean we should be OK with it? I'm a bit put off by the thought of an American president running away from a debate with any other head of state; the fact that it would be with a head of state as pompous and arrogant as Ahmadinejad and from a state as rogue as Iran makes it so much worse. But the real kicker is that this comes at a time when America needs to demonstrate moral leadership even more than it must demonstrate military resolve.

We're told that a debate right now would be a distraction from the more pressing issue of getting Iran to abandon its uranium enrichment programs. Well, that's certainly true, it would be a distraction... but I don't hear any counteroffers of having a debate after Iran brings itself into compliance. Forgive me if I sense that there's a bit of a cop-out here. A more likely explanation (and rather obvious, considering this came as no surprise to anyone) is that the debate will pretty much be an opportunity for Iran, Venezuela, et. al. to spout off all their complaints against us, and we don't want to face it.

Well, that's a problem. If we're being blamed for being "the root cause of all the problems in the world," we sure as hell need to face up to that charge. We're afraid to do so. Part of this is because we're worried that, although our detractors are wrong on most points, we will not be able to effectively rebut them and the global attention will hurt our image regardless of who is right. The other part that bothers us is that we know in some ways, they are going to be right, and that most of us within the US are going to learn things about ourselves we didn't know and were happier not knowing. Both of these excuses suck ass.

First of all, we never miss an opportunity to compliment ourselves on how great our political system is. One would think that in a country with such an advanced system, great politicians, orators, researchers, and scholars would be produced. We should be able field a team that can create and communicate a winning argument. Yeah, I doubt Bush is the best guy to actually articulate the argument. But Cheney may well be, and I don't see any problem with offering someone else. I'm sure Ahmadinejad wants Bush because he knows Bush will make an ass of himself, and he'll be angry if we offer a pinch hitter. And not offering Bush will signal weakness in the sense that we know Bush can't debate worth a damn--but guess what? The whole world already knows Bush is a shitty speaker. Making a counteroffer will put Ahmadinejad on the defensive though, because then he'll have to choose what is more important, embarrassing a leader with just 2 years left in his term, or having a discussion on issues that will continue to be important to the 3rd world for decades to come. By running away altogether, we signal weakness not only in Bush himself, but in America's policies as well.

Second, if we are doing wrong in the world, sticking our heads in the sand isn't exactly the kind of leadership we need to be demonstrating. The conflict we're in now is one of ideology, and what happens in the minds of people all over the world is just as crucial as what happens on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. If we want to persuade the poor, hopeless, and angry masses of potential terrorists not to resort to violence against the West, we can't do it by being hypocrites and by providing them with reasons to hate us. We're trying to persuade them to adopt a different moral order, because we know that the progress of society requires peace and stability and that peace and stability can only be achieved if (1) people are willing to accept their differences and co-exist rather than resorting to force, or (2) the sovereign is able to force the same views upon everyone and is repressive enough to ensure stability. We also know that the absolute power of (2) corrupts absolutely and will not work over time, and even while it is working it imposes terrible costs. A moral argument is not persuasive, however, if it comes from an immoral source. Clerics and other leaders will not endorse democratic reform and non-violence if they are firmly convinced that doing so will simply allow the US to expand it hegemony to their detriment. The rank-and-file will be happy to listen to radicals who blame the US for injustices as long as we fail to refute the cases where we are right AND to apologize and make amends for the cases where we are wrong. There will be such cases.

In our policies, there is often a conflict between acting in our interest and doing the right thing. We may be realizing, however, that our place in the world cannot be maintained through force of arms alone. It requires maintaining the cooperation of our allies and breaking up the unity of our enemies. Our old ways of supporting corrupt regimes, covertly toppling governments, assassination, exploitation of economic power, etc., must be reigned in if we're to be perceived as the "good guys" we like to believe we are. Doing the right thing is becoming our interest.

So why not tell the world that we are doing the right thing when we are accused of causing problems? Why not apologize when they are right, and resolve to act consistently with our values? This is what the version of America that exists in our hearts and minds would do; isn't it worth a little discomfort to make the America that actually exists act the same way?

Applying legal concepts to ordinary buisiness dealings (AKA: Why non lawyers hate us)

I just received my replacement system. I don't know if it works yet, because I can't plug my keyboard in. Apparently, this new system (a Dell Dimesnion E310) only supports USB keyboards and mice. I had a conventional keyboard with my old Dimension. They did not send a compatible keyboard with the E310. And I am thoroughly pissed. So, I'm about to send this email to tech support:

The system is here (mostly). Thank you.

However, it appears that this system does not support conventional mice or keyboards. The Dimension that I bought did, obviously.

I would like to point out that when I agreed to receive a new system and to send the orginal system back, I was promised, "Since your system is no longer in production at our factory, the replacement system will be refurbished. It will meet/exceed the specifications of your original system." (Emphasis added) The system you have sent me does not meet or exceed the specifications of my original system because my original system supported conventional mice and keyboards, while the replacement cannot.

As a rememdy, I propose that Dell ships a keyboard that is compatible with the E310 system to me. In the alternative, if I am forced to buy new components in order to have a system that functions, then I will not ship back the original system. The sale and/or use of salvaged parts should adequately compensate me for Dell's breach.

Please let me know how you would like to proceed.

Sincerely,

Ken Bach

I'm actually a little weak on whether there was actually an offer and acceptance here, or on whether they are obligated to replace the keyboard under warranty, but no need to tell them that yet. Hopefully I can save myself a trip to Best Buy.

Progress Report

So far, so good. I've been able to find the time to work out as planned without missing too much. My record was not perfect, however most of the sets I missed I was able to make up over the weekend. What I didn't expect was that it wasn't busy-work type stuff that bumped most of my workouts, but social engagements. That's not something I feel too badly about. Overall, I'm giving myself a B+ for the week.

Goal Progress: On target, completed nearly all sets for the week w/o unduly interfering with other priorities.
Completeness: Mostly complete. Missed regeneration and prehab sets. Made up strength and prehab sets.
Performance: weight range for upper body sets low, but improving quickly. EAS (cardio) performance OK in the 0-12 minute range, but need to maintain effort for the longer sets.
Motivation: Adequate. Will be considered good when I begin looking forward to going to SCRC. Will be considered great when the more it hurts, the better I feel. Currently at the "I don't care if I'm tired, I'm doing all the fucking reps" stage. Being in a room with other people, about half of whom are female, about 85% of whom are quite attractive, helps a lot with that one.
Injury: OK. No sign of tendonitis. Some residual soreness in calves after runs.
Fatigue: Moderate. Feeling a little worn out at the beginning of a set sometimes.
Nutrition: Good. But could be improved. I pretty much stuck to the plan from last weekend to Thursday, but from that point forward consumed too much beer and soda and spaced my meals too far apart.

Reflections on the War on Terror

Like many others, I've spent the last two evening watching ABC's path to 9-11 and the President's speech, so I've been thinking about where we on in the war and where we soon could be. I'm starting the feel that the situation is rather bleak.

There's really no excuse if we fail in Iraq. We have competent, adaptive people on the ground and a country that wants to be secure. I'm personally aggravated because we only hear about Iraq when US personnel die or when there are significant civilian casualties. We rarely hear about their political system, development of education, development of government and social institutions, and anti-terror raids. It's not a balanced picture, and it's sapping our will to fight. And that's just the thing. We can win. But in the final analysis, we may lose anyways because we're pussies compared to the fundamentalist extremists. We bitch and moan about high gas prices, health care, and the occasional casualty for a war many of us don't even understand, while our enemies completely dedicate themselves to the cause, forsaking their careers, family, safety... risking their lives, and in some cases, voluntarily giving their lives, to that cause. If these people only understood the futility of using force over beliefs and the value of religious and intellectual tolerance, they would be heroic. But we can't be bothered by the reality that we're in a war that's bigger than a regional flare-up; we just want to get on with our normal lives and be happy.

America may well be in military decline, and not just unconventionally. We have allowed eastern antiship missile technology to exceed ours. We have allowed eastern air to air missile technology to equal ours. We are allowing petty environmentalists to endanger our capability to defend against subsurface threats. The day may very well be coming when our forces are denied access to areas of the world where we need to maintain a presence to secure our economic interests. But as the world's only superpower, we don't care because we don't see a new Russia emerging. That's a big mistake, and it may cost us far more than proliferation of nuclear weapons to new states (although probably not as much as proliferation to terrorist groups). Again, this state of affairs isn't because we're not better than them. It's because we're allowing them to beat us. It's a question of will and priority. Our missile priorities have turned sharply to the strike role, despite the proven ineffectiveness of the LAM against terrorist targets (due to them getting the hell out of dodge) and a reasonable appraisal of their effectiveness against conventional targets (will be shot down by air defenses before reaching them). What really matters in a conventional battle isn't stand-off LAMs, but air supremacy. But, in our arrogance, we have assumed that we will have air supremacy by default and have spent our money on programs that exploit this assumed condition. With Russian and Chinese equipment and expertise being sold around the globe, that assumption will likely prove not to be true.

Security is not a fixed status. One does not attain it and then not worry about it anymore. America feels that it has done just that. We feel safe because we are the only superpower and because terrorists seem unable to strike targets outside of the mideast at present. And because of that, we feel we can just go on our merry way and not have to worry. We're wrong about that, and if we don't wake up we are going to lose our position in the world. And considering just how badly our ideological enemies and developing rivals want it and how far they are willing to go to get it, I'm not sure we deserve the top spot with our current attitude.

Making a Commitment

I think it's time. For too long, I've sit around watching my muscles shrink and my gut expand, and I haven't done anything about it besides complain about my lack of motivation to change the trend. There was a time when I could make my own motivation and it wouldn't matter. I'm not sure if I'm back to that point, but if I'm not I need to get there. In any case, at the moment I think my brother has provided enough motivation for me to push me along to the point that I can do it on my own.

So, today, I started on Mark Verstegen's excercise plan, which is essentially the same plan that my brother introduced to Special Boat Team 20 (yep, he's in the Navy). The SEALs are expected to follow suit. After all, SBT20 was plagued by overuse injuries under their older plans, and those injuries dropped off to ZERO after the new plan was implemented. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me. And better still, it isn't supposed to take much more than 30-45 minutes a day. Considering my tendonitis and my time constraints, this seems just about perfect.

Right now, my only real goal is to implement the plan and stick with it. I think once I get it to be a routine, I'll view it as one of my daily responsibilities, just like going to class or reading cases. I think I'm going to manage. I've already tweaked the recomended plan to fit into my schedule and bought some equipment. Also, I've been regulating my diet much more strictly than I have in the past since mid-summer. I've stuck with that so far, and I think I'm going to rachet that up a notch as well... I'll have to check my intake levels and see how close they are to the targets (right now I don't know, I'm adhering to the principles rather than any strict plan).

With any luck, this will be an important step in getting my life to where it should be. Who knows, as my health and energy levels improve, I might even stop being the non-smiling mopey guy all the time. We'll see...