My Weekly Fatwa

Will getting busted while driving a white Ford Taurus hurt Eminem's street creds?

2007-02-08T20:42:00.000-06:00

When knocking over mailboxes while driving drunk and naked in a white Ford Taurus is outlawed, only outlaws will knock over mailboxes while driving drunk and naked in a white Ford Taurus.

Most Unflattering WSJ Pencil Drawing Award

2007-02-08T19:12:00.000-06:00

I don't think I'd want to get held in contempt by Judge Higbee. (That's the Sarlacc Pit, for all you non-lawyers out there.)

Boston needs to watch more Aqua Teen...bigtime

2007-01-31T18:35:00.000-06:00

Looks like all of Boston shut down because of the Mooninites. As Carl might say, that's just so sweet!

Jeebuz, anyone who watches the Cartoon Network could tell you that no terrorist would make a bomb that looked like a Mooninite. For one thing, you pretty much have to be stoned geek to even know who Ignignokt and Err are. And I just don't think stoned terrorists are all that motivated to make improvised explosive devices. Elaborate bongs, maybe. But not IEDs.

So maybe Boston's finest needs one or two stoner Adult Swim fans to help them identify the pranks from the terrorists. There's bound to be one or two on the other side of the river. Aqua Teen Hunger Force: Showing the world you can have someone say "shithead" in a cartoon, provided you say it in German.

When gender equity smacks into socialized medicine

2007-01-27T22:17:00.000-06:00

Oh, what will the Swedes think of next? Choosing sex of gynecologist to be banned.

How to inflate your silver currency

2007-01-27T22:13:00.000-06:00

I thought this article was cool. (Historic Discovery: Spanish Funny Money) So colonial-era Spanish inflation wasn't just due to an influx of gold and silver from the New World. They were also punching their own slugs.

Recent CNET review of the "Boomberry" feature

2007-01-23T00:07:00.000-06:00

A recent news "exclusive" from CBS says that cops are worried about a gun that looks like a knife. Personally, I don't see the point. (See CBS 2 Exclusive: A Weapon That Even Scares Cops)

But what I actually found interesting was the "gun that's disguised as a Blackberry". I want that feature. Because every day I get an email that causes me to think, "Gee, I wish my Blackberry had a gun attachment, so I could just shoot myself!" Many days I get several of those emails.

I'm willing to bet it would be a very popular feature. Probably the best thing since cyanide-flavored memo paper.

The UN's role in setting international law/poppadum standards

2007-01-22T06:31:00.000-06:00

I've been wondering exactly what the United Nations' proper role in the world should be. Deterring war? Yeah, it and what army! Promoting democracy and human rights across the world? You guys crack me up!

But I finally found it! Poppadum standards! See, some are like crackers, some are like bread...there's just no consistency! Somebody has to step in to make sure our poppadums are up to par, and I can think of no better somebody than the United Nations.

See article here.

Chait on overlearning the lessons of the last war

2007-01-16T23:01:00.000-06:00

Jonathan Chait has an interesting article in the LA Times, repeated in the New Republic, on why it doesn't matter if you were right about the Iraq war. (An interesting side point: only Al Gore is batting 100.)

See We can't surrender to the doves

The Great Molasses Flood

2007-01-14T22:56:00.000-06:00

Over dinner conversation with friends tonight I learned of the Great Molasses Flood of 1919. The horror...the sweet, sticky horror. Seriously, 21 dead.

(See here, if you don't believe the first link.)

Since it's called the "Great" Molasses Flood, does this imply there have been lesser molasses floods?

(Image from the Boston Public Library.)

Today's assignment, children...

2007-01-12T06:21:00.000-06:00

...is to write a headline for this photo.

I'm not suggesting anything here

2007-01-09T19:16:00.000-06:00

...but Donald Trump wasn't by chance born in Brazil or Argentina, was he?

I'm just saying his signature on the recent Rosie-Donald tiff missive (see here) looks a little like someone else's... who was also a megalomaniac.

(Oh, yeah, and props to Mary-n-Texas...even if she can't figure out how to get herself a legitimate blog display name.)

Today's Princeton Review analogy test

2007-01-08T23:39:00.000-06:00

Fill in the blank:

Tokyo is to Godzilla as Japanese ship is to [ click here ].

A prime example of [fill in the blank] run amok

2007-01-07T02:20:00.000-06:00

I'm really not sure what to make of this UK story about some poor gambling shmuck who died from a heart attack because the ambulance drivers were in the middle of their European Union-mandated lunch break and it was illegal for them to put down their sandwiches and drive to the emergency. Is this an example of regulation run amok? Labor unions run amok? Socialized medicine run amok? Euroclerosis run amok? Lack of common sense run amok?

So many choices.

Oh, my gawd...did you see the rock BPM 37093 gave her??

2007-01-06T01:33:00.000-06:00

Yeah, and you thought she was going to be impressed with that little chip you bought her down at the mall. (Think 10 billion trillion trillion carats.)

Happy Gangsta Feet

2007-01-02T20:53:00.000-06:00

Crap, when Smooth B took the niece to see Happy Feet, I really should have gone along. He didn't tell me it was a gangsta flick!

No wonder Little E has started calling me "Uncle Dawg" (Click the picture)

Jesus and Imam Mahdi to appear soon and kick everyone's asses

2007-01-02T15:12:00.000-06:00

This would be so cool! It would be like Spiderman joining up with Batman. Except that Spiderman opposes violence and preaches forgiving your enemies, and Batman...apparently doesn't.

Of course, the news is coming from Iran's official state media website, so we know how ironclad solid the news is. (Besides, I think I saw this on an episode of South Park.)

More on Iraq War casualties

2007-01-02T00:48:00.000-06:00

Jeff Donn of the Associated Press has a surprisingly interesting analytical piece on why we feel the 3000 casualties suffered in Iraq is a large number, despite it being miniscule in historical terms. See U.S. Toll in Iraq Lower Than Past Wars. This part, in particular, caught my eye:

Polling analysts believe Americans are more sensitive to casualties than in the past because they neither see vital interests at stake nor feel the "halo effect" from a clear prospect of success.
"When is it going to stop? We're losing a lot of youngsters," says former tanker Ed Collins, 82, of Hicksville, N.Y., who survived the assault on Normandy's beaches in World War II. "I went in when I was 18; that was young, too. But we fought for something. Now we have no idea who we're fighting for and what we're fighting for."
That's partly because the mission's focus has shifted repeatedly, the experts argue: from finding weapons of mass destruction, to deposing Saddam Hussein, to fighting terrorists.
When the number of Americans lost in Iraq recently passed the 2,973 killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the parallel was noted by some. Some have also noted that Iraqi deaths far surpass those of the American military, with tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed in the violence.
Building a stable democracy in Iraq has been given as a justification for the war's sacrifices, and yet close to two-thirds of Americans think a stable, democratic government is unlikely to take hold in Iraq, according to a Dec. 8 poll by AP-Ipsos. Many believe Iraq has fallen into the chaos of civil war.
Americans instead tend to back wars to stop aggression, like the invasion of Kuwait before the first war with Iraq in 1991, polling indicates. "If the public really believed that our war in Iraq now was about stopping aggression, stopping terrorism, then we would see a greater degree of tolerance for casualties," says Bruce Jentleson, a former policy planner in President Clinton's State Department who now teaches at Duke University.

That makes sense. But this part doesn't:

America's young no longer feel personally threatened, either. The military draft is history. These days, mostly working-class teenagers volunteer to do the fighting.

Charles Moskos, a sociologist at Northwestern University, believes America has lost zeal for warfare because the children of its elite rarely serve. The all-volunteer military is one of many legacies of Vietnam today.

Bobby Blair, a Vietnam veteran from Holliston, Mass., recently spoke about Iraq to a church youth group. "None of them personally know of anyone who's in Iraq," he said. "They didn't realize how serious it was. I said, 'Do you think we're watching a video game?' And some of them said it was almost that."

Greater wealth and smaller families make Americans even more protective of their children and more loath to send them into battle than they once were, some argue. They are "sort of hothouse kids," says Harvey Sapolsky, the retired head of security studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who notes, "My grandparents had seven kids, my parents had two."

If America's young and elite no longer feel threatened by war, then you have to ask why they care at all about so few casualties. You'd think it would go the other way -- because they aren't threatened and don't know anybody in the military, the cost of the war would be far more acceptable.

I think the answer lies with the foggy and changing explanation for the war, rather than some kind of "hothouse kids" phenomenon. After all, there were expectations of much higher casualties in Afghanistan, and most of America was not willing to shy away from that fight.

Bombs can't kill Bangkok's charms, visitors say...

2007-01-01T19:52:00.000-06:00

...but they can sure kill you, beeyotch. (See The International Herald Tribune)

And one other thing...

2007-01-01T18:51:00.000-06:00

The most disturbing thing about the Saddam hanging is the "Muqtada" chants you hear from the guards. (See here, provided you aren't queasy.) Sayyed Mugtada al-Sadr is, of course, the young Shi'ite leader of the Mahdi Army, which, from what I'm told, now causes our troops more grief than the Sunnis (mostly because it is directly supplied by the Iranians). The chants mean the Iraqi military and police are thoroughly compromised by the militias. Nothing new, for sure, but just graphic proof.

There's no hope for a continued unified Iraq under such a situation.

The meager death toll in Iraq

2007-01-01T12:16:00.000-06:00

With the combat death toll in Iraq reaching 3000, Time Magazine has an article noting that the death toll in Iraq is "a pittance" compared with previous wars. (See America's Lost 3,000.)

As disclosure, and so I don't hear any crap from someone saying "you'd think differently if those were your kids over there," I actually have friends and an in-law in Iraq at the moment. For me, the strange thing about the casualties in Iraq is the prominence it plays in the media, and the relative lack of prominence it plays in the lives of most Americans, despite the media attention. I think there are several reasons for this:

The media likes bad news and conflict (because, let's be honest, it sells), so a heavy emphasis is placed on casualty numbers;

Despite this emphasis, as wars go and for a country of 300 million people, 3000 is a very small number, particularly over three years;

Because the U.S. military is all-volunteer and relatively small (about a million less than, say, 15 years ago), most Americans don't know anyone serving in Iraq, and certainly don't know someone who's been killed or wounded.

The end result is something a little strange. As wars go, this one is relatively cheap, both in terms of money and lives. Of course, even one life is too much if it is yours or someone you care about. But that's the case about all wars. And saying this is a "war of choice" isn't really a very good response, either, since most wars that the US has been involved in have been wars of choice. Even WWII. Had the US not embargoed Japan, there would have been no Pearl Harbor. For that matter, it's good to remember that WWII did not technically begin for Britain and France in May 1940 when German troops crossed into the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg on their way to Paris, but with the UK and France declaring war on Germany in September 1939 after Germany invaded Poland -- i.e., the so-called "Phony War". In either case, the path to war was clear and possible deviations from that path existed. It's just that none of the parties believed the benefits of deviating from war worth the price.

Historically, it's also not just the incompetence with which the US has fought the war in Iraq. The first few years of the Civil War (for the Union) and, again, even World War II were fought more incompetently, in some cases. MacArthur lost the Philippines to the Japanese, despite having received warnings of a likely Japanese invasion months beforehand, and after rejecting an offer by George Marshall in August 1941 to supply with Philippines with an additional Army division. (MacArthur even had 8 hours advance notice of an incoming Japanese air attack after Pearl Harbor, but "Dugout Doug," as some of his troops called him, refused to meet with his air force chief or authorize his planes to be dispersed.) Similarly, Vice Admirals Frank Fletcher and Robert Ghormley failed to provide air support for the US amphibious landings in the Solomons, which put the entire invasion in danger and may well have led to the loss of hundreds of American lives. In the Atlantic, US Admiral Ernest King, Chief of Naval Operations, refused to adopt British convoy tactics against German U-boats in 1942, despite clear British experience demonstrating the efficacy of this approach. The result was that throughout most of the year, German submarines sank hundreds of US merchant ships, killing thousands of American civilian sailors. And, while many US troops in Iraq have lacked the latest body armor and up-armored Humvees, these logistical and material complaints pale in comparison to the near-criminal weapons and logistical failures of WWII -- for example, non-detonating torpedoes contracted without adequate testing, and poorly performing dive-bombers purchased by the thousands before the prototypes even flew.

But, of course, one of the differences between previous wars and this one is the media. And, to a degree, that's a good thing. MacArthur, despite his incompetence, wasn't fired until the next war. There was no public outcry about US servicemen being put in danger by malfunctioning weapons because the public never learned of them. On the other hand, there was no public doubt that the US would prevail in that war, even when, factually speaking, the actual outcome really was in doubt.

That said, there is one thing that many previous war presidents have had that President Bush does not. And that is a much freer hand with military resources. Bush did not hedge his bets on Iraq -- he gambled it all on a single number. Unfortunately, it was not a winning number. Or, perhaps to be more sympathetic, the guys he ordered to place the wager put the money down on the wrong place (by attempting to occupy Iraq with woefully few troops). Given that the United States has relatively little recent experience with occupation (as opposed to war-fighting), there has been no clear plan to adapt to the change in circumstance.

This is very different from previous wars. In WWII, while MacArthur dithered around the South Pacific, Nimitz nonetheless brought the war directly home to the Japanese through his island-hopping campaign. Churchill's repeatedly mistaken attempts to find the German "soft underbelly" was a sideshow rendered moot by Soviet victories at Stalingrad, Kuban and Kursk. Even in the failure that was Vietnam, the American presidents had the luxury of being able to massively increase troop numbers in the country, even if that strategy eventually proved futile. However, in Iraq, U.S. forces seem to be playing a reactive game, attempting to keep the snakes from escaping from the snake pit. Worse, the President's hands are more or less tied with regard to troop numbers. Unlike Lyndon Johnson, Bush hasn't shown himself willing to jeopardize his domestic program to fight this war -- something he would need to do if he were to increase the size of the US military to the point where it could successfully restore order in Iraq. (Bush would either need to reinstitute the draft -- which ain't gonna happen -- or seriously increase military pay, which would require a significant tax increase. Alternatively, Bush could cut back on future weapons programs, but that would undermine US security even further.)

And, because of the media, the American people know about it. This isn't a bad thing at all. While a quiet media gave the United States time to work through the many disasters that accompanied World War II, the same type of quiet media allowed Japan and Germany to continue making mistakes until they were defeated. George Bush is, in a sense, much like a modern CEO -- the shareholders are getting quarterly reports and can tell how good a job he's doing. Quarterly reports tend to focus the minds of business executives, but they have also been accused of creating a short-termist mindset.

In short, 3000 is a very small number, as wars go. During the first World War, tens of thousands died within a few hours at the Somme. 3000 is just a fraction of the number of gun-related fatalities that the American people tolerate each year in our own country. Nearly that many Americans died at Pearl Harbor. But the issue for 2007 isn't about the lives or the money, but about the plan. Are we engaged in a stay-the-course war of attrition in Iraq? Given the casualty rates and budgetary costs so far, we can do this. We can incur 1000 deaths per year in Iraq and it will take us 50 years before we reach the number of casualties we suffered in Vietnam.

If so, what do we envision victory looking like from such a conflict? I've got the feeling that, at this point, we don't.

Saddam and the proceduralist confusion

2006-12-30T01:45:00.000-06:00

Former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was executed earlier today. I actually have an old book from my grad school days called "The Old Social Classes and the Revolutionary Movements of Iraq" by Hanna Batatu, written in 1978. It's a history of Iraq during the first three quarters of the 20th century. Lots of Marx and Weber. Anyway, I bring this up because I first read it right around the time of the first Gulf War, at which point Saddam had been firmly in control of Iraq for more than a decade. Having been published a year before Saddam's rise, however, the book only mentions Saddam in passing, as a deputy party member. (In an extensive table on Ba'ath party members, "Saddam Husain at-Takriti" is listed as an Arab Sunni born in 1937 in Takrit, formerly a secondary school teacher, party worker, deputy chairman, and Revolutionary Command Council member, and having attended law school. He is also described as a son of a peasant from the al-Begat tribal group.)

Leading to and following Saddam's execution, a number of human rights groups have decried the execution (1) as the result of an unfair trial and (2) under the theory that the death penalty is always wrong. (See Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.)

I'm not sure I get either of these points at the theory level. In law, procedure is necessary in order to achieve a fair result -- the discovery of whether or not the defendant is guilty of the crimes of which he or she is accused. Procedure is not sufficient for a fair result, nor is it necessary. It is just a very useful tool to getting there.

With Saddam, of course, the facts are not in dispute. The trial literally could have been run by kangaroos and the question of whether or not Saddam was responsible for ordering the deaths of thousands of people would still have been answered correctly (at least insofar as kangaroos could write out a verdict). So I'm not sure what these groups are getting at on the "unfair trial" point. Are they disputing that he was responsible for the atrocities with which he was accused? If not, why is procedure so important to them? Are they concerned about precedent? (That seems particularly odd, since Iraq has a civil law system that doesn't rely on precedent.) So, if the procedure is secondary, how was the conclusion of the court unfair? (Were the conclusions of the mobs that killed Benito Mussolini and Nicolae Ceausescu "unfair"? They certainly weren't inaccurate...)

The second point just seems like sloppy thinking. A lot of people oppose the death penalty on the grounds that it's irrevocable -- you make a mistake and execute the wrong guy, and you've committed a grave injustice that can't be rectified. But that's clearly not the case here. We all know the guy did it. And since we know that what Saddam did was about as heinous as crimes come (rape rooms, feeding children to dogs in front of their parents, delivering decapitated heads of political dissidents to their wives, etc. -- for a taste, read "Tales of the Tyrant" by Mark Bowden in The Atlantic), to still oppose the death penalty is to oppose the death penalty on all grounds, no matter what the crime and no matter how sure you are of who did it.

Why? The human rights groups offer only platitudes.

“Saddam Hussein was responsible for massive human rights violations, but that can’t justify giving him the death penalty, which is a cruel and inhuman punishment,” said Richard Dicker, director of Human Rights Watch’s International Justice Program. “The test of a government’s commitment to human rights is measured by the way it treats its worst offenders,” said Dicker. “History will judge these actions harshly.”

Really? Why is it cruel and inhuman? Why is this a test of a government's commitment to human rights? Has history judged the execution of the Nazis harshly?

All I'm asking for is a thought out philosophical argument here. You know, a little Kant maybe?

Sen. Harry Reid too busy pretending to be relevant to foreign policy to attend Ford funeral

2006-12-28T14:52:00.000-06:00

Since foreign policy is the domain of the executive branch, even if "U.S. relations with some of the countries are in need of improvement" (as Reid's spokesman Jim Manley apparently believes), how is Harry Reid's trip to South America not just a junket? Since they have absolutely no influence over U.S.-Latin American relations (except in the negative sense, if they don't vote in favor of a trade agreement), isn't that a lame excuse for missing Gerald Ford's funeral? (I'm not saying these senators should go -- I'm just saying that "I'm on a junket to South America" is a lame excuse.)

I love polar bears...but they have got to go

2006-12-27T11:02:00.000-06:00

This is one to file under "People who haven't a clue". CNN is reporting that the US Interior Department will list polar bears as a "threatened" species.

I love polar bears. Not only are they cute, but they eat people, too. It's win-win all around. But what caught my eye about the polar bear story is that "Environmentalists hope that invoking the Endangered Species Act protections eventually might provide impetus for the government to cut back on its emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping 'greenhouse' gases that are warming the atmosphere." The story quotes Kassie Siegel, a lawyer for the Center for Biological Diversity, as saying, "This is a victory for the polar bear, and all wildlife threatened by global warming. There is still time to save polar bears but we must reduce greenhouse gas pollution immediately."

I've got news for you all: the Endangered Species Act has never been used as an impetus for massive social and economic change, and it never will be. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will require very real changes that will effect the lives (and pocketbooks) of every American. A lawsuit by an environmental group asking the courts to force the government to protect polar bears by, for example, mandating strict new standards for cars, powerplants, beef consumption, etc. is a sure way to see the Endangered Species Act repealed or seriously watered-down.

Even if Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House.

Happy Holidays!

2006-12-24T19:31:00.000-06:00

Er, I mean, "Merry Christmas!"

I, for one, don't mean to be starting any wars against Christmas. I saw what happened to Walmart. Given how powerful we know Walmart to be, anyone who can pull that off... I mean, when St. Nick's occupation forces come rolling in, I, for one, plan to be a loyal citizen of the new order. And when that whole "know who's naughty or nice" elvish secret police thing comes knocking, you better believe I will sell you out faster than a Frenchman at an Octoberfest brawl! As far as I'm concerned, snitchin' is bitchin'.

I'm still up this wee hour mostly because of tomorrow's feast. The fam's at my place this year, so my menu is:

Dolmades (to celebrate my Greek roots)

Thai rice sausages (because they're just so hard to find around here, I have to make them)

Spinach and pomegranate salad

Roasted beets with balsalmic vinegrette

Roasted fennel with beans (my version of that bean with cream of mushroom soup thing)

Creole spoon bread

Spiced glazed ham

Horseradish and pepper-crusted beef tenderloin with port reduction sauce

Molten chocolate cake with vanilla ice cream

So, I've pretty much been working on it since Saturday. Hope you're jealous.

My own private Turkmenistan

2006-12-22T01:14:00.000-06:00

All of us mourn for the passing of Turkmenistan's president-for-life and Turkmenbashi Saparmurat Niyazov -- and not just Pakistan, of course. After all, who hasn't experienced times, when life is going a little rough, where we thought about that great man and all that he has accomplished, and said to ourselves, "I, too, can do great things! Someday, I too will rename three months of the calendar, write a rambling book of my deepest thoughts, and have a gigantic copy of that book put in the middle of my hometown, with a device to turn a page of that book every day and read out over a loud speaker what I've written therein!"

I'm telling you, it's thoughts like those that get me through the day. More days than you care to imagine.

But getting back to the great man himself, I thought we should honor his memory with a short list of just some of his great accomplishments:

His face is on the country's currency. Also its teabags, vodka, postage stamps, pretty much every vertical surface, quite a few horizontal surfaces, ...

He renamed January "Turkmenbashi" (after his own glorious leadershipness); he renamed October "Rukhnama" (the title of his book, the best-selling title in all of Turkmenistan); and, of course, he renamed December "Gurbansoltan" after his own mother. How sweet is that??

He introduced his own line of cologne

He banned Turkmen singers from performing to recorded music and newscasters from wearing make-up

He created a big gold statue of himself in the capital city that rotates to follow the sun

He banned gold teeth, beards and long hair in young people, because they're all a bunch of hippie freaks

He banned all hospitals and libraries anywhere other than his capital

That last one, to be honest, might not have been the smartest for someone with heart problems. But who's to say his heart wasn't in the right place? Well, let me rephrase -- he meant well, right?

Pageants gone wild!

2006-12-21T23:46:00.000-06:00

Mary-n-Texas, my self-flagellating friend to whom this site is dedicated, asked for more salaciousness and skin. (By the way, is it "self-flagellation" if you hit yourself in the head with a hammer, Monty Python-style? Seems a bit more hardcore than that.) In particular, Mary brought up the shenanigans that recently got Miss Nevada, Katie Rees, stripped of her title. (Article here. More importantly, photos here. Even more interesting photos here.)

But this is what I don't get. From what I understand, the Miss USA/Miss Universe and Miss America pageants' ratings have been in decline for years. They are quaint, silly, sexist, anachronistic... whatever you want. More importantly, they generally are very boring, even after the introduction of two-piece bathing suits. So, from a purely marketing perspective, what's less boring than Miss Nevada topless, kissing other hot girls? Huh? Sure as hell beats international financial regulation, I can tell you that.

If you don't believe me, name one former Miss America or Miss USA whose name you remember and who later went on to bigger and better things? You can only think of one, can't you? Vanessa Williams.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Sometimes innovation is just not recognizing something's impossible

2006-12-20T23:43:00.000-06:00

For example, who would have thought you could paint your face red, spray paint on a fake beard, and still get your photo taken for a new drivers license?

I think I saw this on 'Jurassic Park'

2006-12-20T19:18:00.000-06:00

Komodo dragon virgin births. But what I don't get is, if a female lizard swam out to some strange island (say the Galapagos) and then laid self-fertilized eggs, and then mated with the hatchlings... I mean, whoa, that'd be like West Virginia in terms of genetic diversity in the population, wouldn't it?

Public service anti-drug message #1

2006-12-20T07:08:00.000-06:00

And to think, this woman wasn't even high yet.

A North Carolina woman was arrested after complaining to a police officer that the crack cocaine she had just purchased wasn't very good, authorities said. Eloise D. Reaves, 50, approached the Putnam County sheriff's deputy at a convenience store Friday, telling him that another man had sold her "bad crack" that contained wax and cocaine. She pulled an alleged crack rock out of her mouth and placed it on the deputy's car for inspection, the Palatka Daily News reported for Tuesday editions.

As Mr. Mackey might say, "Children, crack will make ya stupid, m'kay?" Really really really mind-blowingly working-really-hard-at-it stupid.

Thanks to Pokey. ...Wow...

File under: "People who don't know what they are talking about"

2006-12-19T22:02:00.000-06:00

A surprisingly large number of European officials seem to fall under this category. The latest news flash comes from the Terry Davis, secretary general of Council of Europe, who says the days of the death penalty in the United States are at the "definitive beginning of the end... I have no doubt that this trend is welcomed by a lot of Americans who, given a proper choice, prefer just security to cruel revenge.'' (See Days numbered for US death penalty.)

Personally, I prefer cruel revenge. It's a dish best served cold. With a little apple sauce on the side.

But while we're on the topic of European officials and the apparent legalization of hallucinogenic drugs, if you ever wonder whether the Europeans have gotten off that whole "only-white-Western-Europeans-are-civilized-the-rest-of-the-world-is-a-bunch-of-primative-savages" thing, you don't really have to look farther than just about anything they have to say on the death penalty. For example, Davis says, "The United States of America is on its way to join the rest of the civilized world where this inhuman and barbaric punishment has already been rejected." Which, apparently, means Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea -- indeed, pretty much all of Asia -- are not part of the civilized world. (Seriously here. Whenever Europeans talk about "world opinion" or "international" this or that, they pretty much just mean Europe.)

But I suppose Terry could be right. On the other hand, since we in the U.S. currently are debating legalizing torture, I'm guessing the death penalty is not feeling too threatened.

The Park Bitches set me up!

2006-12-19T16:37:00.000-06:00

Oh, Marion... Where would Washington, D.C. be without you? If you weren't being arrested for something on a regular basis, and then later widely reelected...well, DC might actually get a vote in Congress!

See Barry Arrested, Claims He Was Targeted.

More fun from North Korea

2006-12-17T18:00:00.000-06:00

The latest issue of China Security (a journal "dedicated to providing a Chinese perspective on issues that will shape [the US-China] bilateral relations in the decades ahead") has three articles by Chinese academics on North Korea's decision to develop nuclear weapons. Chinese academics, of course, operate under a very different environment than their U.S. counterparts. Whereas U.S. academics have tenure and can say whatever absurd things come into their minds, Chinese professors can easily find themselves in prison for saying even the most benign things, if it displeases the Chinese government. Accordingly, what these academics have to say about Chinese-North Korean relations represents more than just your typical professorial musings. The articles likely were cleared by Communist Party officials and, consequently, may signal official government thinking.

The first essay, Coping with a Nuclear North Korea, by Liangui Zhang, a professor of international strategic research at the Party School of the China Communist Party Central Committee, summarizes the issue for China:

On Oct. 9, 2006, North Korea brazenly carried out a nuclear test in defiance of the international community. The test reveals that long ago the DPRK’s leaders made a decision to develop and possess nuclear weapons. Having crossed the nuclear threshold, it is unlikely that Pyongyang will give up its possession of such weapons.

North Korea’s action was undoubtedly a challenge to the international community’s staunch opposition to nuclear proliferation. It has furthermore seriously damaged peace and stability in Northeast Asia. If North Korea’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is analyzed from the perspective of the North Korean nuclear crisis as a process still underway as well as the result of North Korea already a nuclear nation, we find that the degree of cost and benefit differs for each of the relevant parties. Regardless, however, China is the biggest loser.

Zhang believes that it is clear that North Korea long ago decided to develop nuclear weapons, and that previous agreements to the contrary (such as the Clinton Administration's agreement to provide assistance to North Korea in exchange for their abandonment of a nuclear development program) were merely delaying tactics. From a US perspective, this is interesting, because it means that, Democratic criticisms of the Bush Administration's policies towards North Korea notwithstanding, North Korea was hellbent on these weapons from the beginning, for both international and domestic reasons:

...nuclear weapons also serve to restore the strategic balance – even if only psychological – with South Korea. Since 1948, when the North and South states were founded, there has existed an acute struggle over inheritance of the Korean Peninsula. The balance of comprehensive national strength began to tip in the early 1970s, and widened dramatically with the South’s economic power growing 30 times greater than the North. Frustrating the North is the fact that there is no conceivable reversal for the near future. North Korean leaders see mastering nuclear weapons as the only possible measure to dispel the fear of failure in this competition and, even possibly to take the initiative in unifying the Korean Peninsula through force.
...
With a stagnant economy and worsening poverty of its people, successful tests provide them with an explanation since nuclear weapons are regarded as a symbol of national strength and scientific and technological prowess. This can be seen in slogans like “military-first politics” and “construct a powerful country.” The nuclear program helps to stabilize society, eliminate feelings of failure and enhance the legitimacy of the system.

The other interesting point of Zhang's article is how much this situation sucks from the Chinese perspective. Partly, this is because the big winner is Japan:

Under the pretext of guarding against North Korean missiles, Japan has sharply increased its military spending, set up the missile defense system in cooperation with the United States, launched several reconnaissance satellites, expanded the maritime combat force, drawn up a strategy for a preemptive strike and strengthened the Japanese-American alliance, thereby accomplishing a long held wish. Furthermore, according to Japanese media coverage dated May 22, 2005, a report from the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee claimed that if China continued its ambiguous policies on the North Korean nuclear issue then the United States would encourage Japan to become nuclearized and turn “Japanese nuclear weapons” against “North Korean nuclear weapons.” It would also organize an “alliance system” that included Taiwan, Australia, South Korea, Japan and other Southeast Asian countries and regions. In this way, Japan would in one stroke become a nuclear power and a central force in a new East Asian military alliance.

By contrast, the US a nuclearized North Korea is a mixed bag. The North Korean threat allows the US to strengthen its military alliances throughout Asia, and in a way that makes it difficult for China to protest. The US will also have an easier time keeping South Korea and Japan allied. On the down side, nuclear proliferation to other states may snowball, and there is always the risk that North Korea will sell or give a nuclear weapon to terrorists.

For China, however:

...the losses for China far outweigh any gains. Since China is in strategic competition with the United States and Japan, their gains, as set out above, are China’s losses. To make matters worse, some of their losses are also losses for China. This latter category would include nuclear proliferation and the consequent instability in East Asia.

Zhang also points out that the "lesson of Vietnam should not be forgotten." For Chinese, of course, the "lesson of Vietnam" is very different than it is for Americans. (China supplied North Vietnam with weapons during the US war there, only to see many of those weapons turned against it when China and Vietnam went to war in 1979.) In other words, North Korean nuclear weapons may be pointed at Japan and South Korea today, but that doesn't mean they won't be pointed in China's direction tomorrow.

By contrast, in North Korea's Strategic Significance to China, Professor Dingli Shen of the Institute of International Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai, argues that, for China, North Korea is inextricably linked to the Taiwan issue. In particular, Shen argues that so long as North Korea focuses the attention of the United States, the US will not have the military resources or will to protect Taiwan against China. Although this is a very different view from the one Zhang takes, the conclusion is the same: any bilateral US-North Korea arrangement is problematic, because it will necessarily come at the expense of China's interest. A second bad outcome would be a war between the United States and North Korea -- primarily because North Korea would lose and then China would face a united Korean, Japanese, and Taiwanese front led by the US.

A third view, Shifting Tides: China and North Korea by Feng Zhu, professor of the School of International Studies and director of the International Security Program at Peking University, argues that public perceptions of North Korea in China are changing, and these changes will have an effect on China's future policies. According to Zhu, North Korea's actions, first by testing long-range missiles and then by developing nuclear weapons, have had negative implications for China's security and were carried out despite strenuous Chinese objections. In this sense, North Korea has demonstrated it does not care what China, its one and only benefactor, thinks. Chinese leaders now wonder whether they have been backing the wrong horse and that perhaps closer relations with South Korea is in China's long-term economic and security best interests (particularly given South Korean antipathy towards Japan and occasional resentment of the United States).

Of these arguments, Zhang's and Zhu's seems most rational, but it is unclear whether this is a debate among individuals or a debate within the Chinese hierarchy. Shen believes that a nuclearized Japan would alienate the United States. Under the current situation, this seems unlikely. At the same time, Shen's view that North Korea is a deterrent to US activity in the region (because the US must maintain troops on the Korean peninsula) seems stretched. US troops remain in Korea not because of North Korea, but because of South Korea, Japan and, significantly, China. (The view in the US is that without at least the appearance of a US commitment, Japan would go nuclear and South Korea and China would have heart attacks.) Of course, it seems quite possible that all of these views are held.

Vienna to promote cross-dressing by showing men wearing skirts doing things

2006-12-16T06:29:00.000-06:00

In order to promote "gender mainstreaming," the quaint Austrian village of Vienna will now mandate that cross walk signs show men in skirts trying to cross the street instead of just men in pants crossing the street. In a nod to the lesbian community, the new ordinance also mandates that baby-changing stations in restrooms show women wearing comfortable slacks changing the baby, instead of the more traditional woman in a skirt cleaning up the little poop machine.

Interestingly, however, the new ordinance does not change street signs warning drivers of construction workers ahead. These signs will continue to show men and lesbians wearing pants, instead of skirts.

See article here.

The Internet is a dangerous place to tell a joke

2006-12-14T18:54:00.000-06:00

Speaking of interesting websites, it's hard to beat HornyManatee.com. It's one of those things just destined to be created.

According to the New York Times, HornyManatee was created in a panic, after Conan O'Brien ad-libbed that a "voyeur" shown on the Conan O'Brien Show was watching that website. Of course, at the time, no such website existed. But the show's bright lawyers realized as soon as taping was over that this situation would change in a heartbeat, probably not in a good way, and possibly in a way that would lead to lawsuits for the show should someone buy the domain name and post "inappropriate" material.

(Which begs the question: What material could possibly be considered "inappropriate" on a website called HornyManatee.com? "Your honor, Conan O'Brien mentioned a website called 'HornyManatee.com' in reference to an obviously disturbed voyeur, and when I went to that site I was shocked -- shocked! -- to find there were no horny manatees at all!...")

So, a few minutes and $159 later, NBC found itself the proud owner of a new website.

Ms. Dewey

2006-12-13T22:34:00.000-06:00

I was checking out Microsoft's new search engine, Ms. Dewey. She's very addictive. I'm not sure whether or not she actually got me the websites I was looking for. You kind of forget about that part after a while.

Bolton should know better

2006-12-13T17:10:00.000-06:00

OK, I know outgoing US ambassador to the UN John Bolton is doing this just to annoy all those Europeans out there going around suing US government officials for various human rights issues, but still...this is childish. (See Move to charge Ahmadi-Nejad over Israel remarks). I don't care if genocide is an international crime of some sort, there still should be such a thing as sovereign immunity, unless you're so obnoxious that someone comes in an militarily kicks your butt. And "inciting" genocide? Puleeze.

I mean, two wrongs don't make a right. And we shouldn't be encouraging the idea that international law is anything that it isn't (i.e., that it means much at all). No matter what Amandarodintodd says about Israel.

Saudis to help Sunnis in Iraq

2006-12-13T00:39:00.000-06:00

Hey, didn't I say this would happen? Didn't I??

See the NYT's "Saudis Give a Grim What If Should U.S. Opt to Leave Iraq":

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia conveyed that message to Vice President Dick Cheney two weeks ago during Mr. Cheney’s whirlwind visit to Riyadh, the officials said. During the visit, King Abdullah also expressed strong opposition to diplomatic talks between the United States and Iran, and pushed for Washington to encourage the resumption of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, senior Bush administration officials said.

The Saudi warning reflects fears among America’s Sunni Arab allies about Iran’s rising influence in Iraq, coupled with Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. King Abdullah II of Jordan has also expressed concern about rising Shiite influence, and about the prospect that the Shiite-dominated government would use Iraqi troops against the Sunni population.

And compare that with what I said here. Particularly this part:

While it is possible that the warring factions in Iraq will see the danger that faces them as the US withdraws (and this withdrawal might therefore force them to the negotiating table), this scenario seems less likely because outside forces will push for war. Iraq’s neighbors will not silently watch this drama unfold. Sunni/Wahhabi jihadists (many of them foreign) will continue a terror campaign against Iraq’s Shi’ite communities in order to forestall a Shi’ite-dominated Iraq. Iran, by contrast, will see an Iraqi civil war (and the absence of American troops) as their single greatest opportunity to dominate the region, and they will lend their full support behind the Shi’ite Iraqi side. Iraq has been Iran’s most significant regional enemy, even before the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, and even though the majority of Iraq’s citizens are members of the same Muslim denomination as the Iranians (Shia’ism), the ethnic divide should not be underestimated. Iran will prefer to see a unified Iraq under Iranian control, but they will prefer to see a divided Iraq over a unified, but independent country. We can also expect that the Sunni Arab states will recognize this Iranian opportunity for what it is, and will use their wealth and military resources to help ensure that Iran does not achieve its goal — even if that means supporting jihadists. At a minimum, this will mean that, absent US troops, a full-scale Iraqi civil war will be very difficult to avert, and likely will be extremely bloody. In a worst-case scenario, an Iraqi civil war could spark an all-out war between Iran and the Sunni Arab states of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria and even Egypt.

Why doesn't anyone listen to me?

Incoming House intelligence chief botches easy intel quiz

2006-12-11T14:42:00.000-06:00

Congressional Quarterly national security editor Jeff Stein got to ask incoming House Intelligence Committee chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) some basic questions on intelligence-related matters, which Rep. Reyes promptly botched. I mean, got wrong in the way that would get you a "D" in a basic undergraduate political science class. (See "Democrats’ New Intelligence Chairman Needs a Crash Course on al Qaeda".)

So, that leads me to several questions:

Is your basic Congressman an idiot? I mean, seriously. Don't they read the materials their staffers give them? Don't they even read the newspapers? When it comes to House elections, are we basically electing the D students? And why?
Shouldn't we have these have these kinds of tests for all House and Senate committee chairmen, in their respective fields? For example, for the House Financial Services Committee, we could give them a test that asks whether they know the difference between debt and equity? The new chairman of the Armed Services Committee could be asked whether he or she knows the difference between a ballistic missile submarine and an aircraft carrier (and could they identify photos of them)? The House Ways and Means Committee chairman could be asked to balance a checkbook.
Should we make such tests mandatory for all committee members?

I'm not asking for "gotcha" type questions. Just the very basics. Because, frankly, if you've been a member of the House Intelligence Committee for several years already and you don't know that Al Qaeda is a Sunni terrorist organization, or that Hezbollah is Shi'ite, how can you effectively lead this committee?

And I don't want you to be thinking that I'm just picking on Reyes, or that I'm an academic snob (though I am). I'm not saying everyone needs a PhD here, but taking a quick look though the Intelligence Committee membership's education credentials (with a handful of happy exceptions), is a little depressing:

Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas): Associates degree, El Paso Community College
Pete Hoekstra (R-Michigan): BA, Hope College and MBA, Univ. of Michigan
Ray LaHood (R-Illinois): BS, Bradley University
Jane Harman (D-California): Smith College and Harvard Law School
Terry Everett (R-Alabama): attended a community college (but apparently did not graduate)
Leonard L. Boswell (D-Iowa): BA, Graceland College, Artillery Officers Candidate School, Army Aviation Fixed Wing Flight School, Army Aviation Helicopter Flight School, Army Command and General Staff College
Jo Anne Davis (R-Virginia): attended Hampton Roads Business College, (but apparently did not graduate)
Bud Cramer (D-Alabama): BA, JD Univ. of Alabama
Anna G. Eshoo (D-California): Associates degree, Canada College

NSA bugged Princess Di

2006-12-10T00:31:00.000-06:00

Actually, sounds like pretty much everyone did, according to the Britain's Guardian. Even her driver (the drunk guy) was working for the French Direction de la surveillance du territoire.

What I don't get is why the Guardian is acting all surprised that we'd tap her phones. Come on, what do you think we pay these Maryland folks to do, just spy on Arabs? We spy on everybody! And everybody spies on us.

It's all kinda fair that way.

Russians to NASA: Can we come with?

2006-12-08T12:37:00.000-06:00

Part of me thinks this story ("Russia Wants to Join U.S. Moon Plan") is cool -- it would be nice to have the Russians on a lunar roadtrip. Just so long as they don't slip some polonium in your vodka, they're probably a lot of fun. I'm just not so sure about that "we'd like to provide technology instead of cash" thing.

Don't get me wrong -- the Russians really know how to do a lot with very little! They are masters at that "getting 80% of the way there at 20% of the price" thing. It's just that they also seem to have a very high willingness to accept "accidents." (Remember that Moscow theater siege? You definitely get the feeling that losing a quarter of the hostages was considered "acceptable losses." That may work for them, but would you really want to ride a rocket built by these guys?)

I wonder if the Japanese have any interest in going to the moon...

Ever wunder why are kids is stupid?

2006-12-08T12:24:00.000-06:00

You think maybe school administrators have something to do with it? I mean, I'm glad to see that this four-year old won't have to register as a sex offender or something ("4 -year-old Accused of Improperly Touching Teacher"), but how stupid does a school district have to be to refuse to apologize to the parents of a 4-k tyke who likes to give hugs?

Pretty stupid. (And the district's lawyer is even stupider. He or she is either giving really bad advice, or needs a new client.)

Sad day: Jeane Kirkpatrick passed away

2006-12-08T10:21:00.000-06:00

Even when I was a kid, I thought our own version of Margaret Thatcher was a great. She'll be remembered along with George Kennan and Paul Nitze as one of those scholar-statesmen who helped put the nails in the coffin of communism.

"Wild and Woolly" Britney Spears?

2006-12-07T23:24:00.000-06:00

Bette Midler goes off on Britney Spears and Lindsey Lohan. (See Bette Midler slams 'wild and woolly slut' Britney)

"Wild" I can see. But woolly? Really? I wouldn't exactly describe it that way.

For either of them.

My Weekly Fatwa (or MDF NASCAR edition)

2006-12-06T08:52:00.000-06:00

This is my new blog. It's designed to do two things: (1) return to my original plan of bitching about whatever I feel like bitching about, and (2) cater to my friends and family who have grown increasingly tired of my rantings about financial issues in My Daily Fatwa. Turns out it's easier for me to rant authoritatively and regularly on a topic I actually know something about. However, what I know well is something that is really really boring to most people, even if it is really really important to a small group of extremely over-compensated people. (I need to figure out how to make a buck on that someday...)

So, "My Weekly Fatwa" will probably be more frequent than "weekly" (the "My Daily Fatwa" name already having been taken), but the writing quality will probably be more along the lines of "My Weekly Reader".

Do they still have My Weekly Readers? Or am I really really dating myself here? I also thought about calling it "MDF No FRed" ("My Daily Fatwa No Financial Regulation Edition"), but that was just too much inside baseball. "NASCAR edition", though, is homage to my friend Mary-n-Texas -- as in, "Mary, if you don't like my blog, go watch some TV. I'm sure there's some NASCAR on somewhere."