Last night I left work early so that I could do some clothes and burn some CDs (so I can work longer, so I can buy more CDs rip and burn them, so I can work longer...). Before I could do that I had to install a HD on Windows XP. Now, there's a lot of bad things floating around about XP, but I've generally had very good luck with it. I didn't know, however, how much they monkeyed around with HD installation. So, when I couldn't get it to give the drive a partition letter and didn't know what else to do, I consulted XP's Help and Support.

There went two hours of my life that I would never get back.

Apparently, their help menu does not feel the need to distinguish between a HD that isn't working properly and a video card (or any other software that needs drivers). So I wasted ten minutes with stupid questions like:

Did you install any drivers for it?
Does the manufacturer have new drivers available?

NOTE TO SELF: The computer cannot hear you scream "NO! IT'S A HARDDRIVE, DAG NABBIT!!" even when you have a microphone.

I kept waiting for it to ask "Are you sure the monitor connection is secure?"

So I spent my one night off... working on computers.

October 2nd, you cannot come soon enough...

Eighty-three hours worked this week, that is. I'm leaving today around the 85 mark or so. A couple months back I rushed out to the store to buy Owen Temple's new CD, Right Here and Now, in part because of this one song, which has become my mantra. Without going too in-depth to what I am doing, it's largely related to cost analysis as it pertains to billing. A thousand dollars here, a thousand dollars there. Endless negotiations between companies, handed off to me and materialized in a structured form. A good-will concession by my company or theirs equals twice my annual salary. An obscure computational error is three times that. In our favor, in theirs, evening out in the end. The term "millions" tossed about casually and assigned to proper work orders by the program that I write. Money thrown from this work order to that one to better ascertain efficiency rates and quality costing. Money endlessly moving around...


Move Around Money
Owen Temple

Concrete and chrome, I'm spending time
Getting more of what's yours for less of mine
In fluorescent daylight above the ground
Nobody's life made richer, money moves around

The transfer of wealth is the greatest good
Don't use imagination if you think you could
Art's by corporations, mass produced today
It's more uniform, consistent and it's faster that way

Chorus:
To move around money
Watch it fly
Move around money
Money never dies

Why bother living when you got TV
Eas as changing channels, I know what I want to say
Who's got time to consider what it means to be free
I got sitcoms and commercials, that's enough for me

I'm bought and sold, I'm glad I got the chance
To express myself with Gap khaki pants
I think I'll make a statement, I've got something to say
I use American Express when I'm asked to pay

Chorus

I know they care how I feel at my company
Cause getting sad's bad for productivity
They say added value's what they really want from me
Since I was little is that what I hoped to be

This is the real world not make believe
If money doesn't make you happy then you'd better just leave
You got to make a living so that you can someday
Comfortably regret the life that slipped away

Chorus

Move around money
While you got your chance
Move around money
You can watch it dance

Lyrics copyrighted by Owen, I'm sure. I found them courtesy of Texas Troubadour, which is a great site for those interested in Texas country music.

I got this message from out of the blue on AIM. I periodically do from time to time so I didn't think much of it. Something about it felt a bit odd, but it nonetheless was quite well done:

Them: hi.. wanna chat :-)
Me: kinda busy at the moment
Them: asl (age sex location)?
Them: 24/f/new york
Me: 24/m/Houston
Them: so what are you up to Pariatex*?
Them: cool. i was just hangin out. kinda bord.. kinda horny :-)
Them: feel like cybering with me ? please please...
Me: sorry, not interested
Them: ok, i can take a hint.. but you should check out the pictures i have of me on my site.. you might change ur mind.. check it out http://www.cyberfungirls.com/elisabeth/

*- my account name. Feel free to drop me a line some time and tell me off.

I get spambots messaging me all the time. I'll give this one extra points for being elaborate. It kinda glossed over the point where I said that I was busy, which was the first sign something was odd. Some AIMers are like that, though. Particularly ones that message people out of nowhere. Wasn't sure what to say to the horny part, thought the cyber request was pretty strange, then the site clinched it (it's not even the same name, for heaven's sakes). I wonder what would have happened if I'd said yes. I'm sure some lonely schmuck out there would have. If anyone has run into this bot before and said yes, let me know. Confidentiality, of course, will be granted.

In any case, whoever programmed this did a pretty decent job.

No joke. I was going to majorly recommend Something Positive either today or tomorrow, but Adam somehow beat me to the punch (I didn't even know he read it...). That webstrip has saved my sanity these last couple days. If you canlaugh when your transient tables are not properly picking off information from your tri-fold queries, there is always hope. So let me add my complete recommendation. Check it out.

UPDATE: Uhmmm... a slight warning. It's PG material or R.

UPDATE II: Uhmmm no, no nudity. Language and adult situations.

Note to self: Don't ever plan on having time to do any of the little things you want to do.

I was going to take the time this morning to talk about Iraq, foreign policy, the potential war, and relations with our allies and enemies.

Unfortunately, you lose time while trying to find out where your ride to the airport is and he's not answering his cell phone. Maybe I'll have time to write that when I get back Monday.

Until then, I am leaving you guys and gals with a link to something fun. Something Positive This is a favorite webcomic of mine. Today's strip is very entertaining, and eveen might make you think. If you feel like it.

So, enjoy. I'll post again when I get back from Atlanta. I feel like I'm squandering my chance here to broadcast to the universe. Until then, I bet you'll see some posts by Poster Girl, maybe Alex will find another guest-writer for his guest-writer. Hell, Alex may even breeak his silence. Again.

Damn you, R. Alex Whitlock!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why, oh why, am I damning him?

Well, last night he tells me his plight about being horribly overworked and asks me if I'd like to fill in for him. I think "sure, why not? I usually have tons of time during and after my work day and I can post some really interesting stuff even though I'll be out of town from Thursday afternoon until Monday afternoon, right in the middle of his mini-vacation."

So what happens? Alex has cursed me. I came to work this morning and have had the most hectic day I have had in at least six months. This post, 1 minute before I am to leave, is the *only* time I have had to take a break from anything. I haven't been able to be witty. I haven't been able to enrich the world. I haven't been able to do a damned thing other than program all day! Yes, I am in IT like Alex, although he works with hardware more and I work with software. Oh, and for different companies as well, although Alex used to work for the company I work for and technically in a roundabout way I got my job here because he got me another job somewhere else when that somewhere else bought part of the company I now work for...

So, damn you, Alex, for cursing me with hectic work.

Thank God for my vacation to Atlanta tomorrow.

And (seriously), thanks for letting me post what little I can. It is fun. :)

From AIM:

Alex: It's strange when you don't recognize yourself in the mirror...
LAPG: ?
LAPG: Do you mean that in like abstract alexspeak or did you get your face slices up you last saw yourself?
Alex: Interesting though, but I was speaking in the more literal
LAPG: Oh
LAPG: ?
Alex: Over the past couple days I shaved my goatee off and took off the glasses and put in contacts. Today I swear my hair is two shades a lighter blond.
LAPG: Alex, go home. You're getting delirious.
Alex: I can't go home. It's not 5:00.
LAPG: Wow, does that mean you're actually going to leave at 5??
Alex: Well, no.
LAPG: Maybe you're hair isn't turning lighter blond. Maybe it's turning gray...
Alex: Maybe...

If you get a chance, email him and tell him to GO HOME.

UPDATE: I just thought I would say that Alex is AWESOME. I messed up my last try at this post and messed everything up. He took time out of his hell workday to help me out. Thanks!

I think I won, cause they all ran away.

In my job, that's called a "pyrrhic victory."

UPDATE: It has been brought to my attention that some people don't know what a query is. Well, in database terms a query is a transient replicator of data that draws information from one or more tables and, depending on the coding involved, run totals and comparisons in order to demonstrate blah blah blah blah blah table blah blah blah report blah blah blah form blah blah. They take raw data and make it usable information. It was a long drawn out battle, but I guess I emerged victorious since they ran away. Hence "victory."

Now they've disappeared and I don't know where they went. Hence "pyrrhic."

Some idiot judge in Virginia declared the federal deathpenalty unconstitutional. Are they just TRYING to screw over the Democrats in the November elections? I know that most people are executed on state laws but STILL. This is the kind of thing that has a lot of significance with a lot of moderate voters who like the death penalty and dont want to see some stupid bleeding heart judge legislate it away through the courts. Thats the kind of thing they do in Europe cause people over there wish they had it but the I-know-better-than-you jerkoffs don't believe in letting people have any say in punishing criminals. That's not how things work over here.

So now when some senate candidate wants to take Bush to task on his anti-choice judge picks, his opponent can just say that the death penalty is likely to be overturned before Roe v. Wade is and the whole issue becomes neutralized. That and the economy are the only weapons the senate really have and stupid dumbass judges like that one and the one in California seem determined to prove that the Democrats pick dimwits just like the Republicans.

ARGH!

I've got to give it to Mel Gibson. I really hoe he sticks to his guns and is able to pull this project off. Mainstream film needs something like this to help prove that we're not in a creative tailspin. That we're not just playing to the lowest common denominator. That we still reward vision and heart.

What is this I am talking about? It's called The Passion, an innovative movie idea to say the least.

In The Passion, Mel Gibson wants to make a movie about the last 12 hours of Jesus Christ.

Big deal. So what? What's new about that?

Well, he wants to make thee movie completely in Latin and the ancient hebrew common language of Aramaic. Oh, and he doesn't want to use subtitles *at all*.

A lot of people are questioning if that will ever play to an American audience. An American audience that, supposedly, will never go see a movie where they can't understand what is being said.

To this I say "Bah!" I'd go see it in a split second. Why? Because more than likely, the acting and the raw emotions will be enough to capture the audience. Anyone ever heard of opera? Pantomime? Watching sports with the sound turned off so you don't have to listen to the god-aweful Captain Obvious voice of John Madden?

The point is, all of these come through in the visual. Oh, you say that movies are different? Well, maybe you don't, but let's say that my argument so far has not thus persuaded you...

What about the classic Sci-Fi tale of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey? This movie, arguable one of the most if not the most celebrated of sci-fi movies, the moviegoer sits through a two-hour, nineteen minute movie and hears a total of 45 minutes of dialogue. The first spoken line comes almost 26 minutes into the movie! 2001 was really almost completely devoid of sound. For example, there is never any music or any other major noise in the film when someone is speaking.

And from this out-of-the-ordinary movie, what did we get? We got a paradigm shift in sci-fi. Without 2001, we would still be watching Buck Rodgers stories...

Am I saying that The Passion will have the same effect? No. What I am saying is that it can be pulled off and peoplee will still enjoy it. It's not like there's going to be very little dialogue, it's just that most people won't be able to understand it. But in the same way of 2001, the experience will be gotten through the emotions of the actors and the audience than the dialogue itself.

Plus, I am certain that learning a few Latin and Aramaic words from watching this movie will all do us some good.

Greetings, Programs! Your friendly neighborhood former-college-roomate of Alex's here.

I'll be trying to fill in for Alex while he takes his much-needed R&R period. Until then, you are treated to the randomness of me. First off, a little background:

I have never written to a blog before. There... That should excuse just about any stupid, insulting, or downright weird thing I post to the site.

Second, don't expect to hear the same opinions from me as you would from Alex. We *used* to hold very similar opinions. Since our college days, he has shifted further to thee right (as he himself states), whereas I have stayed roughly the same. Going by the political compass dealy that Alex posted a few days ago, here's where I stand:



Fifth, will I be talking a lot about politics like Alex? Probably not, although around him I definitely do.

Fourth, and Alex will attest to this to thee ends of the Earth... I ramble.

And fifth, I hope you enjoy my postings until Alex can find his way back to sanity.

Well, that's it for the obligitory introduction post. Thanks for making your way through this, and I promise to be more interesting with my regular posts.

Oh, and PS - My keyboard is prone to certain letters sticking. So, if you see a lot of double-e's where they don't belong, you know why.

The past week:
Wednesday: Worked from 8-7:30.
Thursday: Worked from 8-7
Friday: Worked from 8-9
Saturday: Worked from 3pm-2am
Sunday: Got to work at 3pm
Monday: Left work at 4pm
Today: 9-??
Expected for the rest of the week:
[see above]

I'm afraid I'm going to have throw in the towel for a spell. Blogging will be non-existent until October 2nd, at which time you can expect me back with a vengeance.

If we're lucky, Poster Girl or someone else will post in my absence.

It is now 11:33am according to my watch. I have been here since 3pm yesterday. Not so sure how the posting thing will be today, but I'll try.

From the New York Times:

"The Senate Ethics Committee thought what they did was appropriate but no big deal," said one prominent Senate Democrat. "And then to see it blow up like this. There are so many other things that would have been more severe if the evidence had warranted it. A letter of reprimand is really, on the scale of what an ethics committee can do, relatively minor."

Translation: If we'd known admitting that bribery and cover-ups were bad would hurt us, we would have denied it! Who knew it was such a big deal? Gee, imagine if we'd actually thought bribery and cover-ups were bad enough to actually do something about. We'd be dead in the water...

I have not, to my knowledge, committed any of these errors on a resume. Kinda wish I had cause then I would have had something to blame all my rejections last year on.

[Thanks, Hraka]

From MSNBC.com

?[Married men using online dating services] is just a fact of life. Look at the divorce rate,? Clifford said. ?The fact that a significant number of married individuals are using online dating services gives more credence to the sustainability of the market... From a social perspective, this has some disadvantages, and from a business perspective it has advantages.?
Besides, Yahoo?s Mitnik says, not all those married people hanging out at online personals sites are looking for a fling. Many have far more wholesome motives.
?There?s huge entertainment value in searching through online personals,? she said. ?We try to get them to work for us, too. So for example, we made it easy to e-mail (personal) ads to friends. These people are married matchmakers. .. And we pick up a fair number of subscriptions from that.?

From Dictionary.com

ra·tion·al·ize Pronunciation Key (rsh-n-lz)
v. ra·tion·al·ized, ra·tion·al·iz·ing, ra·tion·al·iz·es
v. tr.
1. To make rational.
2. To interpret from a rational standpoint.
3. To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for (one's behavior): ?Many shoppers still rationalize luxury purchases as investments? (Janice Castro).
4. Mathematics. To remove radicals, such as from a denominator, without changing the value of (an expression) or roots of (an equation).
5. Chiefly British. To bring modern, efficient methods to (an industry, for example).

v. intr.
1. To think in a rational or rationalistic way.
2. To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for one's behavior.

You're thinking "Alex, you said that you would change the template on September 20th. It would be like a relaunch and stuff. What's up with the same old boring template?"

Well, to you I respond:
"I have decided it most fitting to the victims of the tragedy that I return the template to its former state and revamp it another time. For though we remember them, we all must return to blah blah blah blah SYMBOLISM blah blah blah METAPHORICAL for the blah blah blah AN ARTISTIC CRITIQUE OF THE TIMES blah blah blah. So, you see, it was all about integrity.

Not because I've had a lousy week and anything I came up with right now would be very drab and angry.

I promise

Pay no attention to the crossed fingers behind my back.

There is a scene in Watchmen, which is perhaps one of the greatest artistic works in existence in any medium, that I am becoming increasingly reminded of.

Criminals don't like Walter Joseph Kovacs. Kovacs has spent nearly two decades making it his personal business to kill as many of them as possible. So when he landed in prison, many suspected that he was a dead man walking. A man by the name of Big Figure, who shares a long history with Kovacs, is in the same penitentury and is going to make sure that he doesn't live long. From outside the cell bars, Figure taunts him. The guards, the prisoners, the entire prison is under Figure's control. Kovacs just sits on his cot, unphased.

Several scenes later, Figure's underlings have been killed. As Figure runs away, Kovacs yells "You don't understand. I'm not trapped in here with you, you're trapped in here with me!"

I think of that every time I read articles like this.

Catherine Seipp's article on the Oxygen network's schedule-based programing reminds me of the early years of the FX network. Does anyone else remember that? They had the "FX Apartment, where the hosts (analogous to radio deejays) would talk between shows and commercial breaks. They called themselves "The living channel" or something like that, and weirdly enough it really felt like it. Even though I was watching old Batman reruns from the 1960's, it felt a little like I was at a friend's apartment doing so and the hosts were my friends.

No, I wasn't sad, lonely, and pathetic, why do you ask?

Anyway, that didn't last but maybe a couple years, cause they changed the format to whatever it is now.

I wonder if they call it The Deceased Network... that alone would be cool

US sends forces to wage secret war in Horn of Africa
The Independent

I guess it's not a secret anymore, is it? It reminds me of how in all the Bond flicks, Bond is such a good secret agent that he's a celebrity and villains recognize him on site.

thumpthump

thumpthump

thumpthump

gulp

thumpthump

thumpthump

They should be here any minute. I've got to present the present form of a system that is like a big giant cargo ship held together by duct tape.

Wish me luck.

Kiefer Sutherland signed on to a Christian film with an R-rating. Cool.

Christians are often of a mixed mind when it comes to storytelling. Since Christians are, more often than not, conservative in nature and uncomfortable with media violence and sex, there is an inclination to create artistic works free of those elements. There's nothing wrong that, but I think it is severely limiting to place these films in magical worlds where cursing, sex, and violence don't exist and where Good People(tm) never do them. It often creates and artifice that the world can be a nice place if you want it to be and leaves its viewers, whom live in the real world, with a sense of disconnect from the work.

Good people do things that are wrong. Now you don't want to say that it's okay that they do, but to deny the reality of the sinning nature of man is to alienate the viewer from the message. To tell people that if you just believe in the Jesus's Salvation you can do no wrong eventually leads to the dissonance between the actions and beliefs of people that believe but are not perfect. If a person drops a dictionary on their bare foot, most are not likely to say "golly-gee-willikers." My father has not, as far as I can remember, ever cussed. My mother has. Different people, even good different people, behave differently. They speak different languages. To have everyone in an artistic work speak the same language interrupts the sense of reality that religious works are supposed to depict.

A long time ago a group of us went to see "While You Were Sleeping" in the movie theaters. When we left, someone commented "I don't think I heard a single cussword in that movie." Since it was a romantic comedy the dialogue mostly dealt with a family talking to each other, that's appropriate. There are times when that is the case and it's a refreshing change of pace. On the other hand, if you're dealing with a Christian story in which there is a drunk man swaggering about, do you really want him saying "dag nabbit?"

A large number of heroes in Christian works probably are not the types to cuss. On the other hand, they will be dealing with those whose type it is. Deal with the characters realistically.

In the case of the Sutherland film, To End All Wars, there will probably be a lot of violence. A lot of conservatives deplore the violence in movies, but this is one case where it is wholly appropriate (the main characters are POWs). Context is important. Several years back a major news network showed Schindler's List, which includes nudity and violence. A conservative congressman denounced the showing of such things on network television and many probably felt the same way. The congressman ended up backing down, in large part, because the violence and nudity were shown in context and were not gratuitous. Violence itself in film is not bad, as many war movies demonstrate. The problem is violence without a moral context. When the killing is done tastefully by the villain or justifiably by the hero, it shouldn't raise the ire that it often does. Putting them all in the same category does not make them look worse, rather it makes the violent productions where immoral violence occurs appear more harmless.

It also creates an even larger disconnect between Christian works and popular entertainment that alienates much of the potential audience, leaving the film to merely be preaching to the choir. Another example that comes to mind is Christian Rock. My best friend was in a Christian rock band in college that eventually split up in part due to a perpetual debate as to whether enough of their songs were directly about Christ. Christian rock is presently at an apex on the music charts with bands like Creed preaching the Word. What makes bands like Creed so effective is that they sing about a multitude of things about life that marginal and non-Christians can relate to. Some might view this as marginalizing their faith and message, but to me it's making it tenable to a much larger audience who might never hear the message at all, "marginalized" or no.

I'd be remiss if I didn't disclose my bias on the matter. I am presently writing a novel right now with a number of religious themes. There aren't sexually explicit scenes, but it certainly does not evade the entire subject. There is also violence because it's rather integral to the plot. And there's cursing, because that's what normal people do.

American Kaiser Justin Weitz links to an interesting article on a school board election endorsement in Florida:

The race (sorry) for the position features three candidates, of which the Star-Banner says that two are qualified. Kurt Kelly, the white candidate who the Star-Banner concedes is deserving of the job, is upset that this influential newspaper has endorsed Washington. Perhaps he is justified:

Washington is black. Too often diversity is disparaged as nothing more than political correctness. In this case, though, Washington not only would bring a missing perspective to this heretofore all-white board, but bring a noteworthy resume of professional and civic credentials, too.

On the face of things, this seems outrageous. If a white candidate received the endorsement because of his race, the NAACP and other civil rights groups would have a cow. But this is more justified, methinks. The district has never had an African-American on its school board, despite the fact that one-third of students are minorities. Frank Washington Jr. probably fills the need.

Color me not-outraged.

I don't know enough about the race to know if the endorsement is justfied. Maybe Kelly was more qualified and trumped by his race. Maybe they were equally qualified or their qualifications were so different that comparison isn't valid. Sometimes there are elections when you just don't know who to vote for. I run into them occasionally. When that happens, you find reasons to vote for someone that are somewhat silly. Are they rational? No. Are they valid? Technically they are not. Ideally, you would be able to interview both men personally and get a better feel. However, sometimes we're flying blind.

The Star-Banner apparently thought both men were equally good. Maybe they shouldn't have endorsed either candidate. Instead, they chose to for some of the flimsy reasoning all voters use when they are torn. They were honest and straightforward about their reasoning. If you disagree with their rationale, don't follow their advice. Pick Kelly because he is a Presbyterian or Washington because your kid knows his kid. The school board district is apparently blessed with two qualified candidates to choose from and a newspaper that is honest about their biases.

We should all be so lucky.

Media bias.

As Ted Barlow says, there is little reason to believe that anyone can be convinced on the subject. There are two media watchdog organizations, AIM (Accuracy in Media) and FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) whose job it is to watch the media and prove biased. The catch is that AIM is convinced that the media is liberal while FAIR that it is conservative. Both sides have their feet planted firmly in the ground and will provide endless ammunition for the footsoldiers of their ideological camp to use in order to prove that the media has it out for them.

I think that both sides are generally paranoid on the matter, but conservatives are more correct in my personal experience. Of course Whitlock thinks that, you may be saying, he's conservative. While it's true that I am objectively right of center, that is more or less a recent development and much of my experience comes from when I wasn't.

In my life, I have held both radically conservative and liberal positions. Readers of this weblog may be surprised to learn that I still hold some of each. Since I started following politics when I was seventeen, I have noticed several things.

1) The more liberal I am, the less biased I believe the media to be. When I was younger and leaned to the left, I did not believe the media to be biased at all. There were a few subjects in which I believed coverage was "bad" (specifically the death penalty),but I didn't notice a pattern. I was pro-choice, against vouchers, and in favor of gun control. I didn't have enough conservative views from which to be able to plot a pattern.

2) I believe the media coverage of subjects in which I am liberal is much more "balanced" than subjects in which I hold a conservative view.

There are two specific issues where my views fall to the left of what Clinton and Gore can politically say on the subject (gay marriage and the death penalty), and I find the media's coverage to be quite fair. I don't view the media's coverage to be right-wing by any stretch of the imagination, even though my own views are well out of the mainstream.

There are a handful of issues where my views are out of the mainstream to the right and I believe the coverage on those issues to be absolutely outrageous. Abortion protesters seem to be constantly portrayed as latent clinic bombers. The NOW is portrayed merely as a group concerned with the rights of women. Planned Parenthood, according to the media, has no political agenda except helping people. Religious institutions, on the other hand, are entirely about ordering people around.

Now, I'll concede that coverage on the abortion issue is not as drastic as I make it out to be. However, the point is that I notice it to the point that it makes me angry. On issues where I am liberal, on the other hand, I don't notice it at all. It's not just issue-by-issue based, because...

3) As some of my views have shifted from left to right, my view of the media's coverage has soured. Inversely, on the subject where my view has shifted left, I find media coverage to be much more fair.

My views have changed over the years. More have moved from left to right than the other way around, but the results have been consistent with #2 both ways. For instance, when I was younger I was pro-choice and pro-death penalty. Coverage on the first was fair and the second infuriating. As I've become anti-death penalty and anti-abortion, the coverage on the former has magically gotten better and the latter deteriorated. As I've become pro-gun, media coverage has gotten worse.

I don't have statistics to back it or any smoking-gun, but I simply don't have any other explanation for it.

Unlike some conservatives, I don't believe there is a big giant media conspiracy. I don't even believe that it is intentional. I don't believe the media covered Clinton's back or that they have it in for Bush (NYT excepted, more on this later). I believe that if they get ahold of a big, credible scandal, they will not hold back on it regardless of who the suspect is. I think the media's coverage of the Clinton scandals was prosecutorial rather than defensive, but I also believe that's because scandal is sexy for news outlets. The same for Bush and Harkin. During the 2000 election, I actually believe that Gore got the shorter end of the stick, though not by as much as most liberals claim. That, too, was circumstantial and ironically probably was a product of left-leaning bias. I don't think the press ever really thought he'd lose.

Which leads to one of the reasons why I think the reporters are unintentionally biased: the belief that the public agrees with them. Reporters are generally left-leaning folks and most reporters for big news outlets live in the already left-leaning urban areas. They are insulated from opposing opinion in a way that conservative writers are not. The Weekly Standard and National Review are based out of liberal areas, so they're surrounded by dissent. Liberal writers at the New York Times are surrounded by other liberals. This, I believe, leads to sloppiness. Or maybe they are all pushing an agenda and I am just naive. I don't know, but I prefer the former explanation.

On a more positive note, I believe that it's gotten better in some places. The Washington Post, which used to lean left, doesn't seem to do so much at all anymore. Television stations did a pretty good job of playing up Bush after 9/11 as they surely would have done for Clinton. The exception, of course, is the New York Times. I disagree with those that believe the media isn't by-and-large biased, but I can't understand how anyone can say, with a straight face, that the NYT is. When the economy was in free-fall, it posed a problem for Bush. When it started recovering, it posed a problem for Bush. When things are good it's bad for Bush. It took them less than a couple weeks to start comparing Afghanistan to Vietnam.

Bias is a difficult thing to pin down. The best example I can give to liberals so that they might be able to relate is Fox News. They have liberal guests and conservative ones. They report positive and negative stories of President Bush. However, any liberal (and most honest non-right-wingers) can see that Fox News's "Fair and Balanced" slogan is a joke. They pit sharp-tongued conservatives against conciliatory (if articulate) liberals. They stack the pundit deck. They do all of these little things that present the right more positively than the left.

What's the liberal/conservative ratio in the NYT punditry? The Washington Post's? ABC? As with Fox News, they'll all report anything big, but the context makes all the difference in the world. Even in basic news reporting, two articles concerning the same subject matter with the same set of facts can sound wildly different.

Conservative news: Experts say that there are thousands of gallons of crude in barren government land in Nevada, but critics want the government to keep out.

Liberal news: House Republicans want to open up drilling in a nature wildlife preserve in Nevada, but environmentalists say the results could be disastrous.

Both of these leads say have the same basic facts, though they paint very different pictures. The first lead points out the proposed benefit of drilling while the second emphasizes the possible problems with the drilling. The first pits "Experts" against "critics" and the second "House Republicans" against "Environmentalists." Until recently, I rarely heard the terms archliberal or left-wing associated with anyone. Moderate Democrats were called "Conservative Democrats" while moderate Republicans were called "Moderate Republicans." The first time I even heard the term "Liberal Republican" was when Jim Jeffords jumped ship. This has improved recently in part because of books like Bias, which is one reason why I'm pretty sure it's not an orchestrated liberal media campaign. Rather, they didn't realize they were doing it, but now that they do they've stopped.

This post has meandered more than I would like, but a quick review:

1) The views are based on my personal experience and my reactions to how the media covers subjects where my beliefs are liberal compared to those where my beliefs are conservative. My reactions may be tainted by something, but I don't know what that might be since it's a comparison of the media's handling of both liberal and conservative causes I support.
2) The media is more sympathetic to liberal causes than conservative ones.
3) The media is naturally more sympathetic to those that pursue liberal causes, but does not engage in "ass-covering" for Democratic politicians or outright prosecution of Republican ones. A scandal is a scandal, and they love scandal.
4) The biases of the media are probably unintentional and, when placed under scrutiny, often correct themselves.
5) Not in the New York Times, though, all hope is currently lost there.
6) Fox News (and the New York Post, for that matter) are a good example of the inverse bias. Both will cover any scandal, but are generally more sympathetic to conservative viewpoints and skeptical of Democratic politicians.

Through Arts & Letters Daily, I ran across an interesting article on physics. Well, as interesting as any article on physics can be. Apprently the entire field is in a serious decline. That doesn't surprise me too much. My present and former roommates and an ex-girlfriend (of sorts) are all people who started out majoring in physics and then moved on to something else. Being the intrepid reporter I'm not really, I decided to ask them why they dropped it. Here are their responses:

"I used to (and still do) enjoy physics and thought it was a lot of fun. The professors took away all the fun.

They were boring and didn't teach. They expected you to come to class knowing everything already. I really just wasn't having fun anymore. They did not motivate me and I heard the same thing from a lot of guys I knew who stayed in the field."

-Former roommate Adam, who went on to get a degree in MIS and now works in the IT field

---

The main reason I quit physics was that I decided that it just wasn't worth it anymore. The more physics classes I took, the farther away from conceptual of theoretical physics the classes got. The classes were increasingly more geared to experimentation (when the weren't written specifically for engineering majors - which was even worse). While it was still possible to derive the theoretical constructs from the courses, it just wasn't worth it any more.

The class the finally made the decision for me was Advanced Physics Lab, which was a year-long rehash of physics experiments a century or more old. Not only was it entirely boring, and completely worthless from the theoretical standpoint, it wasn't even a very good course from the experimental standpoint, since it didn't teach you how to create your own experiments, only how to run ones somebody else created for you. On top of that, the overriding concern of the course was error analysis, which, while important, is not worth a year of laboratory to perform - not too mention that the math involved is incredibly dreary.

So, at that point, I finally decided that I hated physics classes more than I loved physics. Since I wanted to be a writer anyway, the obvious solution was that it was time to change majors.

-Current roommate Danforth, who is also presently working in the IT field.

The ex-girlfriend is, and forever will be, unavailable for comment. She didn't last as long in the program as Adam and Jason did and is currently a fine arts major.

I know enough about physics to know that I'd never want to major in it. That whole gravity thing has been haunting me since I was a clutzy teenager.

From In the National Interest:

It remains unclear to us, however, whether the Bush Administration will be prepared to accept the results of successful international inspections in Iraq, i. e. a disarmed Iraq--with Saddam still in power.

I simply do not understand why there is the assumption that it is even a remotely realistic possibility that (a) Saddam will allow weapon inspectors to do their jobs, and (b) disarmament will occur.

I've even heard the joke that Bush believes he had better quickly invade Iraq before Hussein lets the inspectors in. That's like saying "Reagan had better invade Moscow before the Russians become a free, peace-loving people!"

If Hussein were the type of man to allow for this, none of this would be happening! The assumption that Bush wants a war for political and/or personal reasons has reached so far that it is dictating what Hussein might do contrary to all of the evidence of the past decade.

Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is your enemy, too.

What is more likely to occur, however, is that Saddam will continue to play the same game he played up until Clinton threw in the towel late last decade. He will approve certain inspections at certain times, providing ample opportunity to shuffle the weapons out of site. As time progresses, he will become more and more restrictive and we will become more and more insistent on the agreement that he signed in 1991. Talks will eventually break down.

That is probably a worse case scenario because it would mean that three years from now (or even further down the line) we will be no further in handling the problem than we are now. Hussein will look like he's trying to be reasonable when he's not.

Fortunately, I don't think Bush will let that happen. Ironically, that'll "vindicate" ItNI and like-minded people because as soon as Hussein starts pulling his tricks again, Bush and Blair will send the order and invade. It will look to our detractors like we didn't even want to inspect just like it looked to pro-Palestinian folks that Israel didn't want peace when it stopped abiding by ceasefires every time Arafat said he wanted peace (it's worth noting that Arafat didn't ceasefire, either here, and talk is cheap). The French and Germans won't like us, but we won't care anymore (even compared to the extent that we do now). Liberals will cite this all as more examples of Bush's imcompetence. Conservatives will cite this all as more examples of European idiocy, and the dance will continue.

Except before long, Hussein won't be a part of it anymore

[thanks to Kuff for the link].

-30-

UPDATE: In the National Interest is vindicated. Kuff points out that they are not an anti-war magazine. The point wasn't really aimed at In the National Interest, though, or even necessarily those opposed to military action. Rather, it's addressed at those who believe Bush wants war above all else and without reason.

I was trying to track down some information because my Amazon shipment was sent to my old apartment complex. Anyway, while looking for it online I found out that two days ago (on 9-11), there was a shooting in the parking lot:

Police believe drugs involved in fatal shooting
By MIKE GLENN
Copyright 2002 Houston Chronicle

A narcotics robbery, known as a drug rip, may be behind a fatal shooting late Tuesday at a southwest Houston apartment, police said.

Aldo Pinera, 21, was shot in the head about 10 p.m. in the parking lot of the Belmont Place Apartments, 10550 Valley Forge, police said. He later died at Ben Taub General Hospital.

Pinera, of 6510 Thrush, and another man drove to the parking lot and met the assailant at his truck. Gunfire erupted, and Pinera was shot, but apparently no one else was.

After shooting Pinera with a rifle and then spraying his car with gunfire, the assailant fled the scene in another vehicle. No arrests have been made today, and police have no description of the gunman.

Detectives are questioning the person who was with Pinera. Detectives believe there was only one shooter in the parking lot, although he may have had an accomplice driving the getaway car.

"It is real sketchy right now," said Sgt. Hub Mayer with the Houston Police Homicide division. "Our one eyewitness who seems to know everybody out here is giving us a variety of stories."

MaxSpeak:

In one sense I found some of the popular outrage in the hinterlands over 9-11 to be a little strange. I will now indulge in a regional slur, and apologize in advance to all. You goobers never liked us (New Yorkers and denizens of ?Washington?) before, so where does all this love come from now? It?s a bit like the embrace of Jews, as long as they are right-wing Israelis, by the U.S. fundamentalist right. This philo-semitism is evidently premised on a regard for Jews because in scripture the Jews are destined to convert ? to cease being Jewish. Frankly, if you?re in Colorado or Texas, you?re probably pretty safe. Color me suspicious.

There are obviously some regional disputes between the likes of Texas and NYC. It works both ways. However, in the face of a common enemy we stand together. I'm not saying that to sound cliched or to wave the flag, but because it's true. New Yorkers and Texans may have our differences, but against the likes of al-Qaeda there is no question which side we'll take. We're family, even if sometimes estranged. Personal differences end when tragedy begins.

I consider it very, very sad if you view this all as an act just cause we want to bomb some Arabs or something.

[Found via Junius]

I was going to write a post about what precisely did change, for me, after the WTC attacks. I got in a discussion with Charles Kuffner about Iraq and was going to use that as a springboard. Then I read this post by Juan Gato:

I look at it this way. I think just about every one of us has known (or been) whether in work or personal life someone who was an alchoholic or out of control drug user, but they still managed to more or less show up for work and do their job well enough, so we just let it go. We winked at it.

Then one day, they did what they always do but the inevitable caught up. Say the drunk drove home from the bar as he has a thousand times before, but this time lost control or didn't get lucky. Then we realize that we'd been lazy, scared. We knew this would happen, but, y'know, he always managed to get home safe before so it wasn't our business.

That is where we are now in the world.

I can't really springboard off this post (which says more than I have quote, so go take a look) because, well, it would be redundant. That's exactly what I was going to say, except not nearly as concisely. Damn you, Juan.

Dear Customer,

Remember that program, MS Word 97, you bought from us several years back? It seems that we sold you a faulty product. There is apparently a security issue that would allow someone to remotely track edits of the document so that they would, in effect, have access to the valued documents you entrusted us, with. Yeah. Our bad. We're very sorry about that. Not sorry enough to fix the actual program, mind you. Don't worry, though, we are tirelessly working to make versions after that secure, but we collectively decided you can just go to Hell. The ironic part is that the security hole in future versons of the product is not nearly so big as it is in yours. Remember how we told you all future versions of MS Word would be backwards compatible so you wouldn't have to upgrade unless you wanted to? Well, who says we don't have a sense of humor? We're certainly laughing. Ungrade now or face the consequences.

Your friendly monopoly,
Microsoft

I've never much cared for Matt Miller. Even though he can be quite articulate at times, he has dishonestly called himself an advocate for "the center" while supporing next to nothing except neoliberal causes. That's a subject for another post some time. This one is about the subject of the hour (this hour, not this hour last year): Iraq.

Miller has quite clearly illustrated that I owe conservatives and Republicans an apology. For a while, every time Clinton sent our troops anywhere the infamous Wag the Dog movie would come up. Until the bombings on the Eve of Impeachment that I couldn't seem to explain away, conservative accusations drove me batty. Especially when it was raised yet again for Kosovo. I thought Kosovo was a terrible idea, but the notion that it was politically timed was always nuts. I remember thinking to myself "I can't imagine liberals doing this so blatantly during a Republican administration..."

I was wrong.

Mr. Miller, a reputable center-left commentator, can't shake the feeling that all of this talk of Iraq is in order to evade domestic liabilities, citing various administration tactics as proof:

- In June a floppy disk found in Lafayette Park across from the White House turned out to contain a Powerpoint presentation used by Karl Rove to detail the White House's strategy for the midterm elections. "Focus on war" was a key point in a talk that centered on the White House's desire to "maintain a positive issue environment."

Well duh. What else was it supposed to say? The war politically is the only thing that's gone right for the administration since the attacks. The dance since has been Bush trying to pull the debate towards foreign affairs and the Democrats trying to pull it to domestic concerns. It's called "playing your strengths" and is hardly nefarious. Nor is the engagement in this political tit-for-tat a sign of a moral blind-spot big enough to rationalize all the government effort Bush has put into talking about Iraq for a sham war that's not going to happen.

- Around this time Rove was upbraided (at least for PR reasons) after he told a Republican gathering that the war and terror themes and the associated military buildup could and should play to the Republicans' advantage in the midterm elections.

Bush ran on military build-up in his 2000 campaign. Now that buildup is more justified. It's also an area where it's quite possible that the Democrats are going to try to stall him (such as, for instance, a war in Iraq).

- When White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card was asked why the administration waited until after Labor Day to launch its campaign to convince the American people that military action against Iraq was necessary, Card replied: "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."

Why should Bush try to sell a war when people aren't listening? The inferrence here is that the talk of invading Iraq came out of nowhere after Labor Day to satisfy a political need. Eric Alterman, on the other hand, is trying to make controversy that getting Iraq was one of the Administration's first reactions to the attacks. Saddam was heavily on the minds of many in the administration before 9-11 and in year following it. Some day it's been an obsession. Did Team Bush just start drawing up the plans for the war now because of the Texas Rangers scandal? No, they've had the plans and the rationale for a while now. Can you name one time that Bush could have announced them that wouldn't be linked to something going on that could cause Bush trouble? I can't. Not before 9-11-1 and not since.

- Cheney's own language in dismissing political concerns on "Meet The Press" the other day was quite careful. He spoke of how he and the president have been "talking about Iraq for months," a formulation consistent with the possibility that they've been talking for months about fall being the right time to ratchet up public discussion.

So remind me, which political party is it that has been calling for a thorough debate on Iraq?

- A mere two months ago inquiries about Bush's past business practices, corporate scandals, the sagging economy and stock markets dominated the front page. A little Iraq invasion talk and - presto! - they're all gone, creating the "positive issue environment" Rove wanted. Every top media outlet has redirected manpower and managerial attention to the question of Iraq. It's worth noting how easy it is for a president to transform the political/media culture by invoking national security.

Questions have been asked about Bush's business practices since he was elected. Corporate scandals have been going on since last August. The economy has been south since last summer. If the debates had started this June, the likes of you would likely be saying that Bush is only doing it because his poll numbers have dropped below 70. You could say that he's doing it now for the elections, but why now? Why not a month from now? In actuality, the discussions did start in August. No one was paying attention. Now that people are, the talk has become more serious. Democrats asked for this. If this was being timed, it would probably be more suitably timed. If what you say below is true, then the drum-beat for the Second Gulf War will likely be on pause during the election.

- Lawmakers coming out of classified briefings in recent days say they don't understand Bush's urgency. According to the Washington Post, a senior GOP leader opined that if "top secret" information was not enough to sway Democrats and some Republicans here, "Bush would have trouble winning over a skeptical international audience."

Urgency? Bush has been talking about it since the Axis of Evil speech! Remember that?

Miller seems to have two questions about the Administration's actions regarding Iraq: Why not sooner and why not later?

On the first question, I contend that (1) he has been talking about it this entire time so this is hardly new and (2) any time he would have turned up the volume would have been "suspicious" to the likes of Miller.

Why not later? Because it matters who gets elected! If Bush plans to invade Iraq at any point in the next two years, who gets elected and what they have to say on the subject is crucial. If he invades before the elections (which I don't suspect he will), then the urgency for the plans become quite obvious. If he plans to invade after the elections, he either needs as many Republicans as possible in office or he needs Democrats in conservative states to support going to war against Saddam. This is political, but it's rather strongly linked to the subject at hand.

Miller (credibly) claims that he may support attacking Saddam, but gosh darnit we shouldn't be talking about it! What I suspect is really irritating himis that Bush wants to talk about something that puts the Democrats in a bad light (lest there be any confusion, Miller is a former Clinton staffer). So all that he can really argue is that Bush is playing a "Wag the Dog" trick.

Which is why I owe Republicans and conservatives an apology. I didn't think non-fringe Democrats would do it. I was wrong.

R. Alex Whitlock: Hello new copy machine, I'd like a copy of this form.

COPY MACHINE: What kind of copy? Do you want to use the pre-set digitally-enhanced settings?

RAW: Yeah, sure, whatever.

CM: Consider it done.

RAW: What is this?

CM: It's a digitally enhanced copy.

RAW: This looks like crap! the non-text white areas are dark gray. Give me another copy.

CM: Well it's not my fault that the form you gave me is so plain. I was just trying to spruce it up... So do you want another digitally enhanced copy?

RAW: No.

CM: Fine, then. Be that way. Would you like it cascaded?

RAW: Why would I want that? No. I just want a copy.

CM: Well then where would you like to set the magins on your just-a-copy?

RAW: The margins are set. I want a piece of paper that looks exactly like this one. I don't need you setting the margins.

CM: No margins? Are you sure?

RAW: Quite. Just copy it.

CM: Okay. Do you want this copy to be two sided?

RAW: It can't be too sided. I put it in the scanner and not the paper-grabber. No, one-sided please.

CM: Do you want...

RAW: NO! NO, I DO NOT WANT THAT! Whatever it is...

CM: No reason to be snippy. So if you don't want to use 8.5 by 11 paper, what kind do you want to use?

RAW: Oh, crap. Yes, I want 8.5 by 11.

CM: Too late. If you want that you're gonna have to start all over.

RAW: AHHHHH! Fine.

CM: Do you...

RAW: No. No. 0". Yes. No. Yes.

CM: Okay then. How would you like it placed? Centered, right, or left?

RAW: Centered.

CM: Do you want high quality, medium quality, or low quality?

RAW: If I say high, are you gonna fill the white with gray again?

CM: Teehee.

RAW: Medium.

CM: Do you want...

Co-worker: Alex, your face is turning red.

RAW: I hate this copy machine. I just want a copy of the Roll Call form. It won't stop asking questions.

Co-worker: Oh, well then just press this QuickPrint button.

CM: Curses! Foiled again!! Here is your boring copy.

RAW: Woohoo!

I mentioned previously about the legal entanglements I am caught in at work DSL-wise:

Connectant is apparently suing Ipsco for just about everything short of treason, including fraud, extortion, erroneous billing, and deceptive products and trade practices. Ipsco responded by shutting out all Connectant users. Or perhaps it was the lawsuit that was a response to Ipsco shutting out Connectant, I don't know. In any case, they said if we are contacted by an Ipsco representative not to switch service because they are in breach of contract. I called back later and got put on the support queue. Then I called back even later and they weren't even answering.

We're working through it and are back up as of today. As I deal with both companies, it feels more and more like I am a child caught in the middle of a divorce. Conniver is unable to provide us with DSL service, so they had to give up temporary custody of us to Ipsco for the meantime until the courts finish their ruling. If the court finds in favor of Connectant, we go back to live with them. Otherwise, we're with Ipsco. Both companies are very nice about it. Connectant is going the extra mile on the other services they provide us and helping us with our homework. Ipscohas worked tirelessly to get our connection back running and made a nice little makeshift room for us to sleep in. They obviously both love us very much and both apologize for the other one causing the divorce. Nonetheless, they can't quite stop bad-talking one another.

"We filed the lawsuit and shutting us out was their oh-so-mature response"

"Wow, those boys at Connectant had no idea what they were doing with your setup, did they? We're just going to have to untangle their mess..."

I don't care where we end up, exactly, but this joint custody is killing me...

The Prof linked to Damian Penny, who points out this Salon article, and it's letters to the editor, in disgust. Salon's article and letter page is full of anecdotes of "forbidden" thoughts. I initially passed it over because I thought that it would be a bunch of people whining that they are being silenced by the culture of patriotism blah blah blah. In fact, it's simultaneously more intriguing and banal than that. It was (mostly) thoughts that didn't have anything to do with the geopolitical ramifications. It was just the private jokes, thoughts, and so forth that people had when they first heard the news (and later pondered it).

I'm not as disgusted as Penny. I think most people, whether they would admit it or not, had thoughts that detracted from the seriousness of the attacks. Before we can digest it, at the point before it becomes real, we often approach it like it's a TV show. Or we approach it from a purely selfish and reactionary perspective ("I always hated those towers!" "Woah, cool!" "This is Clinton's fault!") before the reality really started setting in about the many dead and how far-reaching the consequences are. At some point after that initial thought, our minds start engaging in the events and they give way to more appropriate ones ("I guess this means war..." or "Oh my God, all those people..."). So I don't think that most* of the people that had the thoughts Salon posted are necessarily bad people for having them.

The only analogy I can think of -- and it's a weak one -- is the dark thoughs we might have when we found out that our ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend (or vice-versa) is far or obnoxious. You may love the girl and wish her well, but you still take a dark satisfaction at her misfortune because it vindicates you and/or makes you look good. For the most part, when pushed, we'd admit that what's most important is that they are happy. Our compassion and goodwill comes through in the end (for most of us). Our private thoughts in the meantime are a different matter entirely.

We generally don't share these thoughts, particularly with the ones affected (the nation or the girlfriend). That's a good thing.

Our society is increasingly begining to value the opposite. Emotional reactions, no matter how thoughtless and ill-considered, are immediately valid. Even when they contradict who we are and our approach to the world. Even when they don't mean very much to us (since they are just passing thoughts and feelings) and hurt those around us.

For instance, I had a rough adolescence in many respects (who didn't?) and at one point many years ago, I was thinking about it and thought about my sometimes-distant (at the time anyway) relationship with my parents. I thought to myself "They never seemed to take an interest in my life when I was younger." Later that night I thought about it again and realized how rediculous that statement was. My father was the coach of my little league baseball team nearly every year. My mom took videos of it. She was president of the PTA for a couple years. Of course, they didn't know the parents of all my friends like they did for my older brother. They only knew one of my girlfriends. However, that was circumstance more than anything and whenever they could be involved, they were.

Now, before the realization that the whole idea was bunk, I could have confronted my parents about it. I could have thought "since I feel this, it must be valid." I would have gotten a serious (and well-deserved) dressing down if I had. I could have still explained, though, that the fact that I feel this way is significant. Even if it's basis on reality isn't firm, they had allowed me to feel that way. The feeling itself, once expressed, takes on a life of its own. It's cliche to say that we blame our parents for everything. It's true, but rather a symptom of how we often try to avoid the invalidity of many of our thoughts by externalizing the blame. I feel isolated, so they must be isolating me. When I talk about how evil America is, they yell back at me so they aren't recognizing my feelings on the matter (ie they are silencing me).

That, to an extent, is what really bothers me about the Salon article. Not that the writers had these thoughts, but that they felt the need to express them. I would not tell the ex** with the obnoxious boyfriend that I feel that I reacted the way that I do because it could hurt her feelings. Just because I felt it does not make it valid. People wrote their dark thoughts to Salon knowing that people who were personally affected by the tragedy would read it. Yet they sent it in anyway. The weird initial reactions are over, but apparently judgment is still noticeably absent. Salon not only solicited these thoughts, they published them on the anniversary of the tragedy. If they were called on it, they'd likely just say "our readers were expressing themselves and we were just providing the venue" or something like that.

Salon has every right to to publish what they want. People who had these weird thoughts can tell people about them if they want to. That doesn't make it right, though. Even if they are good people who had weird reactions to the tragedy, the reaction time is over and judgment needs to set in at some point. Some thoughts and feelings are not valid and do not need to be expressed.

-30-

*- some of the letter writers talked about their reactions well after the tragedy had set in. I do not include their well-constructed thoughts in the same vein as the random initial reactions people had to tragedy.
**- For the record, the "ex-girlfriend" does not exist and was created solely as an example. No psychoanalyzing allowed.

UPDATE: I read Rosenberg's response, which was as I figured it would be:

We were thinking precisely this: That an orthodoxy has coalesced around 9/11, and that one good role of journalism is to puncture orthodoxies. That the range of human response to 9/11 was a lot wider than that reflected in the media orgy of 9/11 retrospectives. And that it's probably a lot healthier to air such responses than to pretend that they don't exist.

They are felt, therefore they are valid!

Mike Hendrix posted earlier:

The truth is, the free people of the world still do have more in common than our respective governments can sometimes imagine. Our brothers, sisters, and cousins in Europe and Canada are still just that, even though we may disagree on plenty of specific issues. It might be just maudlin naivete for me to say so, but I think that the sympathy expressed for us worldwide in the days following September 11 was genuine, and I think much of it is still there. So many of these people have felt the horror of global terror in their own cities, up close and personal; they've lost friends and loved ones to the evil acts of the Red Brigades, Action Directe, the IRA, the ELA, and of course the various Islamist groups too. So how could these people fail to sympathize with us after 9/11? Is it even possible that such heartfelt sentiment could be just an aberration, a shallow and fleeting moment that in the end will be forgotten and mean less than nothing?

What I decided yesterday I'd post isn't exactly the same as Mr. Hendrix's points, but they're not too far off.

In and around the 'sphere there has been a lot of trash talking of Europe. In Europe, it's been reciprocated. In fact [in the voice of a five year old] they started it!!! Really, though, [in the voice of a weary mother] it doesn't matter who started it. Unfortunately, it's not going to end any time soon. Europe and the US have some serious ideological differences that even a friendship and the goodwill the people from both Europe and America feel for one another can't fix.

But for now, I'm going to focus on the positive.

There are a number of reactions that Europe could have had to the tragedy. Indeed, we saw some of it as some snarky columnists that the like decided to use the opportunity to bash the US. For the most part, though, the reaction was an outpouring of very sincere sympathy. We can say that the animosity between us over the last year is proof that they are not our friends. As far as national policies go, that may be correct. Foreign policies are a mishmash of national interests and national ideals. Europe and I have simple basic ideals (democracy, freedom, etc), but very different ideas about how to do there and increasingly different national interests.

Hurm. I'm not doing a very good job on the "positive" am I?

The positive of it is that we do share a deep respect for life. Contrary to their sometimes view of us as warmongering, we want peace above all. We just don't see it possible with certain world leaders. Contrary to our sometimes view that Europe is more interested in coddling dictators than seeking justice, they simply view honey as more effective than vinegar. Of course, we're right and they're wrong but behind our serious disagreements are a common set of goals. Deep down, I believe that both sides know that. Most Europeans did not believe we deserved what we got. Nor did they sympathize with us because they realized that it could have been them. It also wasn't the condescending manner in which they treat the Palestinians whenever they are attacked. Rather, it was friend to friend, brother to brother.

We're often irritated by their obstinance when it comes to Iraq and other planned missioned. However, we are viewing it through the American lens. We know that if France was attacked instead of the US, we would still have been rushing in to Afghanistan with guns blaring. They may not have even wanted us to, but we would have because that's what we do. We try to make things right with the use of force. We don't always do a perfect job of that, but that's our inclination. Europe, on the other hand, seems to react by consistently wanting to bring the opposing sides together. This, like our use of force, has been known to cause problems as much as provide solutions. So while we have been disappointed by their reaction to what happened, according to their temperament they were perfectly supportive.

[UPDATE: Pierre over at Samizdata points out exactly what I mean here. While Britain is hardly Europe, it is nonetheless the sort of the sort of thing that Europe does better than we do. While we respond with action, they respond with sentiment. If Europe had been attacked, I'm not sure they would have seen such an outpouring a year later from us. We mourn our own, but even collaborative efforts here (such as a drive for everyone to turn on their car lights today) often fall short. Europe would have gotten our unqualified military support instead. It's analogous to a man and woman's showing of affection. Woman loves man, she writes him a sonnet; Man loves woman, he fixes her carborator. Both contributions are important to the giver and should be to the reciever as well.]

You can often tell how close a friendship is by your first reaction to their turmoil. Palestinians danced in the streets. Iranians held a candle vigil. Saddam said, in his best Herman voice, "Haw-haw... urhm, it wasn't me. Honest." Europe appropriately mourned and consoled.

So, to Europe, we're still right and you're still wrong... but thanks. And I mean that.

Dr. Reynolds linked to it, so you may have read it, but for those that haven't, please read Jim Cramer's sound-off about 9-11. Some choice hits:

Strong military? Can't make it strong enough. I hope my children join up when they are old enough, and I wish I were younger so I could serve. Heck, I want my kids to go to the military academies. Strong FBI and CIA? I regret that these organizations have been so emasculated by organizations and politicians I once supported. The need to vanquish our enemies? It's life or death to me -- their deaths, not ours.
...
The terrorists' cause is not Islam, it is not even radical Islam. It is nihilism. The terrorists believe in absolutely nothing other than destroying the lives of others. That's the terrorist creed; think of it as if the devil himself finally had a home team, and don't for a moment try to understand them or reason with them or believe our laws are meant to protect them.

Yes, my heart has been hardened by what my head saw on that awful day and it will remain hardened until the good guys -- and don't doubt for a moment who they are, either -- wipe out all of the bad guys. Do we have to go it alone? Who cares? England went it alone. Our allies weren't attacked as we were. They don't know what it's like or have long forgotten what it's like to be bombed as we were a year ago.

How can one justify such a swing in thinking on the basis of just one day's worth of attacks? Go back in history. Look at the people in this country who were opposed to fighting the last Axis of evil that proclaimed us as an enemy. In the U.S., we had isolationists and pacifists and disarmament types galore in the 1930s and even in the first year of a new awful decade, 1940. Then Pearl Harbor happened, and only the cranks and the fools stayed that course. The nation united in recognizing the need to preserve and defend itself at all costs.

I particularly like his point about nihilism. What those that want us to "understand" the enemy (so that we might reach agreement, as opposed to decimate them) often miss this point. What caused the illness that inflicts the terrorists is no longer relevent. What is relevent is that they are no longer seeking to build. They are seeking to destroy. Us. It doesn't take many people to cause serious damage to the US. It just takes a few with money, connections, and a place to hide. That's why Afghanistan was important (place to hide), why Iraq is important (connections), and why Saudi Arabia may some day be important (rich people with money).

I'll get into this more later, but prior to 9-11 I could reasonably have been called a neo-isolationist. I adamently opposed any intervention in Iraq and I opposed Kosovo. I didn't think it was our job to save the world. As technology becomes greater, the world becomes smaller. We can't hide out anymore. The rest of the world often complained that we ignored the rest of the world. We're not ignoring it anymore, but we don't like what we see. Choose your poison, but we will do what we have to in order to survive.

It was technically September 11th when I put flowers on the car of a woman named Elciem I was pursuing at the time, but it was before 1am so it really doesn't count.

When I got a call at 7:30 or so in the morning from her, I figured it was to thank me for the flowers. I was sleeping soundly, but had left the phone by the bed in case she called. When I answered it, I was only half-awake.

That didn't last long.

---

I asked Elciem what channel to turn the TV to and she said it didn't matter. I fumbled around and looked for a remote as she explained what had happened. Both towers had been hit by that point and the first one was about to collapse. And the Pentagon. My brother works in the DC area doing something that he can't disclose that required considerable security clearence. He could have been at the Pentagon. I realized I was probably being paranoid. I was unemployed at the time, so I bided my time talking to various friends on the Internet, especially ones from abroad who wanted to know how I, and we, were doing.

I woke up my friend Lyon, who had spent the night. I also informed my roommate Jason when he got in from working the graveyard shift. Jason is a frequently irreverent guy. He often quite literally laughs in the face of tragedy. Or at least he did. This was too big to laugh at or shrug off, though. There was really no way that we could react. On one hand, we were so far away from it. Indeed, my Canadian friend who messaged me to make sure that we were doing okay was actually closer. On the other hand, it was an attack on all of us. The thoughts and reactions seem trite now. "Nothing will be the same after this." "We're at war."

Most of my friends are, to one degree or another, left of center. That didn't really matter. One comment was made about fear that Bush was president. I remember thinking briefly how glad I was that Cheney was vice president. The political implications would be clear in time, but at that point we were just watching the towers fall. It was all we could do.

---

I had planned to leave for Waco that morning, but obviously I got held up. By that afternoon, news was no longer rolling in on a minute-by-minute basis. Elciem had left work with a friend. All my friends abroad knew that I was doing alright. I could either sit there and watch the devestating footage or I could leave as I had planned. I was initially worried about rumors of gas price gouging, so I filled up at the first station that I saw. Luckily, Governor Perry's response on the matter was very quick and there was very little gouging to be had.

A couple strange commercials came on the radio during my drive. The first one had the sound of army drums and an announcers voice saying "In times of war, you need cable!"

I thought to myself "Dear lord, have the ads started already?" It turned out that it was a commercial for HBO and a series they had just produced on World War II.

If that wasn't odd enough, the next commercial had a man saying "Fly plane into wall!"

WHAT???

Then the commercial continued... "Stupid! Buy cheap auto insurance! Smart!" or something to that effect. I doubt that the commercial was on the airwaves as soon as someone caught wind of it. It might have been the last time it was ever aired.

Anyway, when I was driving up Highway 6 I passed through a series of small towns. I'm not a rural kind of guy, but there was something that definitely felt safe about it. Safer than I had ever felt on the drive. It reminded me of the novel Alas, Babylon that we read for school where the safest place to be after a nuclear holocaust was in the rural areas. The terrorists would never strike Hearn, Texas. I realized at around that time how really strong our country is. Yes, we had just been attacked and felt our most vulnerable. Yes, they can kill us. They can make us grieve and mourn. In the end, though, no one will take what we have here. America is too spread out and too well armed. I suspect most of the residents of the towns I passed through were armed. If any invading force ever tried to come in, they would see a citizen militia the likes of which they have never seen before.

They were silly thoughts, a lot of them. The threats to the US are not an invading ones. Enough terrorist attacks could send us into a tailspin, but as the weeks ahead of that time would prove, we could handle it. Nonetheless, in times of crisis we find comfort in the strangest things and I was very comforted by our citizen militia. In the last line of defense, we are our own army.

Sorry about the lack of posting yesterday afternoon onward. I had a great one planned and everything. At approximately 2pm the DSL went down, so on my 3:00 break I was unable to write it. The DSL service at my apt has been down since Friday and I didn't have dial-up set-up (that's going to be rectified tonight). So I get here this morning expecting DSL to be back up only to find out that we are in the middle of a legal firestorm between our DSL provider, Connectant, and it's backbone service provider, Ipsco. I called Connectant this morning to complain about the lousy service and got a message that said "for those experiencing a prolonged outage, press five" which was new and I assumed (correctly), serious.

Connectant is apparently suing Ipsco for just about everything short of treason, including fraud, extortion, erroneous billing, and deceptive products and trade practices. Ipsco responded by shutting out all Connectant users. Or perhaps it was the lawsuit that was a response to Ipsco shutting out Connectant, I don't know. In any case, they said if we are contacted by an Ipsco representative not to switch service because they are in breach of contract. I called back later and got put on the support queue. Then I called back even later and they weren't even answering.

Meanwhile, I got wind that Ipsco was on the phone wishing to speak to our accounting manager. I quickly took control of that call and the salesman was trying to push Ipsco's "new" DSL service. If we sign up with them, we'll be online within the hour. We are even currently set up on their system. All they have to do is cut Connectant out of the equation. I deferred and discussed it with the accounting manager and we're still up in the air about what to do. Connectant has our website, domain, and email on their systems. Ipsco, on the other hand, as the connection to the Internet. If we stick with Connectant, we may be left in the lurch in the short term until they find a new provider and in the long term if this mess puts them out of business. Signing on with Ipsco has trouble written all over it.

I talked to a Connectant rep (though he was barely conscious having been there since the outage yesterday at two) about half an hour ago and he said they were aiming to have something set up by this afternoon. I hope for everyone involved's sake that they do.

In the meantime, I am rather tied up. I'll have a connection when I get home tonight and if nothing else, will be able to post then.

Being the male cheauvenist (which means rapist!!) that I am, I didn't think of an excellent rebuttle to Jensen's "[fornicate] or fight" "joke." Thankfully, Steph over at Blacklight brought it to everyone's attention on her blog:

I don't know about the other women reading this, but if anyone ever cornered me and said "f**k or fight", I would go for his eyes without a moment's hesitation. Jensen also needs to realize that, despite his idea that women are seen as being "passive" that's not necessarily true either.

Very true. Asking the question, as a joke or not, is a much more dangerous proposition than it was in 1967.

Houston Police Cheif Clarence Bradford is temporarily stepping down as he faces indictment for lying under oath. Until recently, I always liked Bradford because he generally spoke his mind and was never quite Brown's lackey like one might expect (he was originally appointed by Brown's predecessor, Bob Lanier). There was even some (very, very casual) talk among Republicans wondering if he might be recruitable to GOP ranks. Now it appears that he will be lucky to hold on to his position as police cheif. Most likely, he won't.

Bradford looks like he's going to go down for lying about, of all things, a poddy mouth. Recent K-Mart parking lot raid villain Mark Aguire was reprimanded for cussing to his subordinates and during the trial Bradford testified that he had never cussed during a staff briefing which, predictably, isn't true. My instinct is to say that this isn't a big deal since I really don't think it's a problem even if he is cussing. So why is it a big deal if he lies about it? The whole subject is stupid and neither Aguire nor Bradford should get in trouble for talking like normal people do. I thought of this because I remember jumping through many of the same hoops when I was a Clinton defender throughout 1997 and most of 1998. Clinton shouldn't have been asked the questions he was and why should I care if he was having sex with an intern?

The problem is once you lie under oath, there are consequences. Bradford and Clinton were both put in politically difficult spots, but if you trace it back there were reasons that they were asked the questions they were (whether I agree with those reasons or don't). In the case of Clinton, it was part of a deposition for a sexual harassment lawsuit. Sexual harassment is difficult to prove and the plaintiff was trying to demonstrate a history of unacceptable sexual behavior (such as sleeping with a subordinate). Clinton's denial, if taken at face value, dishonestly hurt the plaintiff's case. In Bradford's case, his denial that he cusses in front of subordinates make Captain Aguire look worse and stacked the deck against him in the disciplinary hearings. Lying under oath creates problems and obstruct's the jury's (or panel's) ability to render a clear verdict. That's what makes it a big deal to me, in both cases.

So while I still like Bradford and still think, on average, he was a good police cheif, he deserves to go down for this (assuming the charges against him are true).

And this time I can convincingly say it's not about sex!

In the novel I'm currently writing, the scenic backdrop is a desolate western town called Hadea Valley. One of the many interesting aspect of The Valley is its geography. The value of the land is almost solely determined by its altitude due to the regular occurance of devastating floods. Therefore, certain words and phrases became synonimous with affluent (a "second-floor restaurant" meant that it was nice, a "first-floor" meant dingy). Many developers took advantage of this by putting the word "Hill" in their apartment or neighborhood names, even if they were located in the gulch downtown. This became such a problem that they had to pass a law saying that anything outside of certain hilly zones could not have the word "hill" in its name because it was deceptive and misleading. In The Valley, people consider "hill" to mean something very specific in the way that to the rest of us "lakefront" means in front of a lake. Certain names of geographic locations have certain connotations that should not be ignored.

So what does this have to do with anything, you ask?

I spent 45 minutes on Saturday looking for a small backroad called "Main Street"

Behold! My first attempt at Fisking or Screeding or whatever you wish to call it. I didn't know if I'd ever get around to doing this, but as you'll see this one has a quite personal significance.

Rape is 'Normal'
by Robert Jensen

It is not surprising that we want to separate ourselves from those who commit hideous crimes, to believe that the abominable things some people do are the result of something evil inside of them.

I kinda want to seperate myself from those who commit hideous crimes because they're dangerous. Something evil inside of them? Maybe, but isn't it usually your side that is always looking for the "inner reason" someone does something? The root cause and whatnot? Me? I'm more concerned with the hideous crime part.

But most of us also struggle with a gnawing feeling that however pathological those brutal criminals are, they are of us -- part of our world, shaped by our culture.

I'm more eggheaded than the average individual, so I must admit that this has crossed my mind. They do walk among us. They eat at the same restaurants. Watch the same TV shows. There is a difference, though, that gnaws at the back of me. They commit hideous crimes!!

Such is the case of Richard Marc Evonitz, a "sexually sadistic psychopath," in the words of one expert, who abducted, raped and killed girls in Virginia and elsewhere. What are the characteristics of a sexually sadistic psychopath? According to a former FBI profiler who has studied serial killers: "A psychopath has no ability to feel remorse for their crimes. They tend to justify what they do as being OK for them. They have no appreciation for the humanity of their victims. They treat them like objects, not human beings."

Such a person is, without question, cruel and inhuman.

Without question. What's the point of this again?

But aspects of that description fit not only sexually sadistic psychopaths; slightly modified, it also describes much "normal" sex in our culture.

Oh, that's right! So you could give yourself clearence to tell us those of us that don't go around raping women are just not in touch with our "inner-psychopath."

Look at mass-marketed pornography, with estimated sales of $10 billion a year in the United States, consumed primarily by men: It routinely depicts women as sexual objects whose sole function is to sexually satisfy men and whose own welfare is irrelevant as long as men are satisfied.

Of course, those women are beaten and dragged in front of the camera to be objectified. What's that? They're offered money so that they can buy food, shelter, and goodies? Oh, well same difference. Right?

Consider the $52-billion-a-year worldwide prostitution business: Though illegal in the United States (except Nevada), that industry is grounded in the presumed right of men to gain sexual satisfaction with no concern for the physical and emotional costs to women and children.

Clearly if they had the women's best interest at heart, they would let the prostitutes starve. I'm not very enthusiastically going to defend American prostitutes or johns, because frankly I'm more concerned about the john's wife and kids at home. In some countries, though, there are women pushed into prostitution because they're starving, threatened, and their cultures don't provide any other opportunities for them. In those cultures, though, prostitution is only one of very, very many problems. Is human nature always good? Absolutely not. That makes us all rapists how?

Or, simply listen to what heterosexual women so often say about their male sexual partners: He only seems interested in his own pleasure; he isn't emotionally engaged with me as a person; he treats me like an object.

Men are unfortunately not always emotionally engaging with the women they're sleeping with. Newsflash, they're not always emotionally engaged with their male friends, either. I can't remember how many times I've thought to myself "Billy Bob doesn't emotionally engage with me as a person. He only sees me as a drinking-buddy-and-watch-dumb-movies-and-have-burping-contests-together object!"

More seriously, though, men are generally less emotionally expressive than women. If you are oblivious to this very obvious fact, I suggest you read John Gray or David Kiersey. Or you can just open your eyes. Anyway, this makes us all rapists how?

To point all this out is not to argue that all men are brutish animals or sexually sadistic psychopaths. Instead, these observations alert us to how sexual predators are not mere aberrations in an otherwise healthy sexual culture.

Oh good. We're not all rapists. What a relief. We just all think like rapists?

In the contemporary United States, men generally are trained in a variety of ways to view sex as the acquisition of pleasure by the taking of women. Sex is a sphere in which mn are trained to see themselves as naturally dominant and women as naturally passive. Women are objectified and women's sexuality is turned into a commodity that can be bought and sold. Sex becomes sexy because men are dominant and women are subordinate.

Let me get this straight. Men pay women for sex. Men pay to see nude pictures of women so they can imagine having sex with them. So how exactly is it that men have all the power when it comes to sex?

Again, the argument is not that all men believe this or act this way, but that such ideas are prevalent in the culture, transmitted from adult men to boys through direct instruction and modeling, by peer pressure among boys, and in mass media. They were the lessons I learned growing up in the 1960s and '70s, and if anything such messages are more common and intense today.

Maybe we can agree on something, then. Indeed, just a few years ago we had a president who treated women like objects. We all know that didn't cause an uproar. Of course, in the end most Americans stuck by him. Curiously, many of them were women. Judging by party alignment, most of them were women.

Still, I have to give him credit on this one. There is a lot of SEX SEX SEX in the media today. Sex, except the lesbian kind, usually means that a boy gets laid. Peer pressure becomes a lot more intense when getting some becomes more possible. So I naturally assume that you blame the sexual revolution. Right? Damn conservative.

The predictable result of this state of affairs is a culture in which sexualized violence, sexual violence and violence-by-sex is so common that it should be considered normal. Not normal in the sense of healthy or preferred, but an expression of the sexual norms of the culture, not violations of those norms. Rape is illegal, but the sexual ethic that underlies rape is woven into the fabric of the culture.

So if most men share this "sexual ethic," why do men almost universally consider rape repugnant? I don't understand rapists. I don't want to. The entire concept of actually physically forcing a woman to have sex with me is outrageous. I want those that do it to be thrown in prison. If I supported the death penalty, I would want them killed. If I supported torture, I would want them killed painfully.

Of course, that means I'm a hater, right? Hate leads some people to murder. Just as lust leads to rape, hate leads to murder. The temperament ehtic that undelies murder is woven into the fabric of our culture of getting angry at people force women to have sex against their will. So does that mean we're all murderers? Cause we allow outrageous things to outrage us? If we allow attractive women to attract us, we're rapists after all. The matter of committing the crime is but a detail, you know, when you look at the "big picture."

None of these observations excuse or justify sexual abuse. Although some have argued that men are naturally sexually aggressive, feminists have long held that such behaviors are learned, which is why we need to focus not only on the individual pathologies of those who cross the legal line and abuse, rape and kill, but on the entire culture.

I completely understand that you are not trying to excuse or justify sexual abuse. Instead, you're trying to implicate us all. Screw you.

Those who find this analysis outrageous should consider the results of a study of sexual assault on U.S. college campuses. Researchers found that 47 percent of the men who had raped said they expected to engage in a similar assault in the future, and 88 percent of men who reported an assault that met the legal definition of rape were adamant that they had not raped. That suggests a culture in which many men cannot see forced sex as rape, and many have no moral qualms about engaging in such sexual activity on a regular basis.

Actually, it suggests that if you ask rapists what they think, you're going to get some twisted answers. I'm sure that if you went to an insane asylum, you would find a disproportionate number of Martian-Americans, too. Rapist views of sex is skewed. Film at 11.

The language men use to describe sex, especially when they are outside the company of women, is revealing. In locker rooms one rarely hears men asking about the quality of their emotional and intimate experiences. Instead, the questions are: "Did you get any last night?" "Did you score?" "Did you f--- her?" Men's discussions about sex often use the language of power -- control, domination, the taking of pleasure.

So naturally you would prefer it if guys talked like "So, did you express your emotional union with your woman by engaging in sexual intercourse?" Guys use cruder language than women whether talking about sex or anything else. At our most stereotypical, we say "get laid," they say "made love." Tomayto, tomahto. Guys are less apt to talk about how they are emotionally effected anyone anything, including sex. First quote ("get a