Tuesday, March 20, 2007

A simpler form of Crack.





I have a problem. See I admitted it!!!!

I found another online game to occupy additional precious moments of my life which could likely be put to better use. The game is a newer port of a German version of the same. Its a browser based market simulation. I'd be in a better situation if I wasn't determined to corner the market on bananas and hold the other users hostage, but alas Total World Domination waits for no man.

The game is free. You can pay 2 euros a month for some extra bits and pieces, but it's not necessary.

In contrast to my previous obsession with Ultima Online Housing, (which by the way paid for the down payment on my first real house) this game is much less intensive. The community are a very nice group of people and very helpful. So, check it out:

Kapilands


Smoke away. The first one is free.

Monday, March 12, 2007

Uhhhhh......

Nothing I would write could possibly add to this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6424337.stm

OK. Yes there is:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6424937.stm

and...




It looks like an ordinary family scene, but Patrick is Susan's brother and they are lovers.

Uh oh...




"Why are disabled parents allowed to have children, or people with hereditary diseases or women over 40? No-one says that is a crime. " - Dr. Wilhelm

Oh geez...

Let's look at that again. A German Doctor questioning if disabled, diseased, or older people should have certain rights. How very "Lebensunwertes Leben" of him.

So let's look at Compulsory sterilization.


We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.

Himmler? Hitler? Goebels? Goering? Mengele?

Nope.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, US Supreme Court in writing the MAJORITY opinion in Buck V. Bell 274 U.S. 200

This opinion included the statement "Three generations of imbeciles are enough. "

Absofreakinglutely Despicable.

More reasons why Sean Connery is Bond.

Roger Moore is a terrible spy and Sean Connery is BOND. Period.

Marie-Ségolène Royal is a socialist candidate for President in France. Some of you may already have assigned two strikes against her just from that sentence.

She is the sister of Gérard Royal. Gérard was previously an agent of the La Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure (Frenchanese for the General Directorate of External Security.) The DGSE is tasked with working outside the physical borders of France to find new and exciting people to whom they can wave white flags.

Actually, I don't believe that at all. In fact it's rather tiresome to hear Americans complain about "Saving France during World War II." Anyone care to remember the French role in the American Revolution? Still, it's cheap easy humor. Can't go wrong.

Getting back to Gerard. Gerard has been implicated in the 1985 invasion (on purpose no-less) of Aukland Harbour in New Zealand. Once the French had slipped through the NZAC defenses, they sank the Rainbow Warrior - completely misinterpreting the bumper sticker.

From the Rainbow Warrior - turned man-made reef - we digress to Jacques Cousteau. A man who delighted us all with the wonders of the sea. Many of you don't know that Jacques had a long-running romance with "Flipper." In fact they had a child together. That child was:

Keiko.

John Denver wrote a song about Cousteau called "Calypso". This occurred just before Denver went down like a flaming yard dart and joined the Rainbow Warrior. Some of you may be confused and believe Calypso was written by Harry Belafonte. Actually, Harry Belafonte was a calypso musician.

Harry Belafonte is / was a number of things. One of those things is a friend of the NRA. You protest?

When I say NRA, clearly I mean Moses. On 08/28/1963 Belafonte and some other people, about 250,000 other people, were in the common-sense-blackhole known as Washington DC. Belafonte (and the 250k) listened to a speech popularly dubbed "I have a dream" amongst the other speakers. The march was entitled "March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom."

NRA? I'm getting there.

Included in the 250k were Bob Dylan, Sidney Poitier, Marlon Brando, Joan Baez, "Peter, Paul and Mary (who incidentally are all the same person) and - Moses aka Charlton Heston. Moses would later buy the NRA on profits he made when he spun off portions of the 17 commandments. Today, of course, we know the core industry to be very profitable as the "10 Commandments."

Clearly you understand then that Belafonte is a big fan of the NRA. That said we take the next logical step. The Muppets. (He was on the show in 1978)

The Muppet Show consisted of 120 episodes between 1976 and 1981.

Episode 24 of season 5. Who's the guest star? Roger Moore. Did I mention this is the last episode? Roger Moore drove the Muppets into the ground!!!! Damn him.

You protest and say Connery was never on the show, so how can I compare them? He was in every freaking episode. You never saw him. He's just that freaking good as Bond.

In summary:

French socialists nuke rainbow as seen by Cousteau who was liked by Denver not Belafonte who is the NRA as allowed by Moses on the Muppet Show which was ruined by Moore despite the fact Connery could have saved everyone.

Thursday, March 8, 2007

Oh the material..... It's Wikilicious.

How do you recover from a PR disaster which results from publishing questionable information? Position yourself to provide more questionable information, in a new format, and now make money doing it!

Because I can't avoid the opportunity to feel better about myself by kicking Wikipedia when they're down, I will now address the irony of a Wikia Search Engine .

We've skimmed over the earlier Wiki-Scandal in a previous entry. Theres quite a bit of bloggismosism about it. You can find a fairly reasonable and believable discourse from Andrew Lih at his blog. But since you're already here, I'll give you my unreasonable and questionable view.

Ryan Jordan, if that's his real name, has now provided an endless, renewable, source of fuel to the Wikihater's fire. Mr. Jordan was a prolific member and Evangelist of Wikiaism. He eventually was hired by Wikia in January of 2007. On his user page "Essjay", as he was known in the Wikipedia community, provided a rather substantial Curriculum Vitae to lend veracity to his work.

I am also a tenured professor of theology; feel free to have a look at my Wikipedia userpage to gain an idea of my background and credentials.

I'd cite the reference but sadly:

This user subpage belonged to User:Essjay, who has left Wikipedia. It has been deleted from Wikipedia per Essjay's request, as part of his right to vanish.

He had a Ph.D which he referenced to support his conclusions.

He offered his credentials in reply to those who question the validity of Wikipedia:

I've contacted a few professors after other Wikipedians have pointed out that the instructor made the "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" argument to students who were, in fact, Wikipeidans. I have a copy of my form response at [wiki citation - removed by blogger]. When I was head of my department, I certainly would have taken knowledge of such conduct into consideration, and I think similarly minded department heads/deans would as well. .... 04:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)



In the summer of 2006, The New Yorker Magazine published an article about Wikipedia which included a profile of Essjay. The article was written by Pulitzer Prize Winner Stacy Schiff.

...a regular user known as Essjay, who serves as an administrator to check against site abuses.
It's a good thing. We wouldn't want any false information. Mr.... excuse me Dr. Jordan will keep everything on the up and up.

Ultimately, Mr. Jordan was qualified to be the Trade Minister of the DRCongo. His credentials were as real as Ilunga was a real person.

Truth of the matter is that Essjay didn't have the qualifications he said he did. He is a 24 year old male from the United States and (there is much confusion about this) possibly works as a paralegal after dropping from community college.

In a questionable attempt to defend himself, Dr. J... oops Mr. Jordan points to others to move scorn away from himself. He accuses Stacy Schiff of having offered to pay him for his interview - the journalistic equivalent of "coming-out of the closet" at a "Hate Convention." I'm thinking it wouldn't happen.

Mr. Jordan continues by alleging to take the high road and decline any such improper offer. Instead he purports to direct Schiff to give the money to the Wiki Foundations.

Wow.

We now know Mr. Jordan is full of crap. Good for him though. He refused to take money for information. The implied ideal is the free exchange of information is a noble and greater cause. By suggesting he refused the enumeration and conducted the interview without regard for himself, he was grasping at martyrdom and subsequently provides that payment for information is a flawed and corrupt practice contrary to the ethos of Wiki.

Payment for information is a flawed and corrupt practice contrary to the ethos of Wiki.

That'd make Wiki-founder Jimbo Wales quite proud. Wales is a great proponent of the free sharing of information. (I'm not being cynical or sarcastic.) (Yet.) I applaud that idea. The free sharing and availability of information is paramount to human rights causes.

From the Wikipedia article on Wales:

Wales has explained his motivations about Wikipedia. In an interview with Slashdot, he said, "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."
The Wikipedia article on Wales reports he is a fan of Ayn Rand. In my opinion, Anthem by Ayn Rand is a beautiful work which keenly addresses the inhibition of informational freedom by an oppressive regime.

Let us contrast this with practice as found on the discussion page for the article:

[Name removed] has pledged a bounty of $15 in donation to the Wikimedia Foundation contingent on Jimmy Wales's improvement to featured status.

Wait... Doesn't this mean "If you change the information, I'll give you money."?

And doesn't a Wikia Search Engine for profit also question the purity of the information provided? Regardless of the pure motives of people paying for the service and even the validity of the information provided, there is a dilemma created which seems to position itself contrary to what Wikipedia would like to be.

Is Wikipedia bad? No! Certainly not. If you use Wikipedia as your single source for reference, your research is likely to be flawed. If you use ANY source exclusively without fact checking and validating references you will have the same problem.

By the way, please visit the blog of Andrew Lih which unknowingly (and likely involuntarily) helped with this post.

I'd be rich.

I'd be rich if I had a clue how to handle money.

Seriously. I am terrible with money. I tend to be impulsive and in addition I'm not very good at following through on things.

I don't want to confirm this, because I'm fairly certain and wouldn't want to poor salt into the wound, but I probably pay more each month in overdraft fees then the nominal annual Gross Domestic Product per capita of 32 countries. (Yes damn it. I looked.)

Budget you say? Sounds like a good idea. In fact, I love ideas. I have tons of them. Good ones at that. I'm not the only one who thinks so. Reasonable people who don't read this blog (that may be redundant) think so.

My employment is lucrative. I make 2x the per capita GDP. I don't buy toys like new cars or boats. In fact, I live very comfortably far removed from poverty. So, when I say I'd be rich I must be referring to disposable income. Then again, since I have no idea how to handle money, that may not be the right term.

So where does it go? I have no idea. (See previous post about that.)

Subsequently, I have resolved the following steps must be taken to rectify my (lack of) plight.

1.) I'm selling a kidney. I haven't decided which one. They've both been good to me. There may be some separation anxiety on their part, so please be patient with any behavioral outbursts they may exhibit.

2.) I'm going Pro on the game show circuit. I am a wealth of useless knowledge. I have as much gravitas as Wikipedia. I have a secret weapon too. I will taunt and intimidate my way to Jeopardy Superdom until Alex worships at my feet.

3.) Sell my secret formula for clean, renewable, resource-free, energy.

4.) OK. I got nothing. Besides I have to take this phone call from the bank.

Wednesday, March 7, 2007

It's not what you know

Not knowing the Trade Minister you appointed is not a real person.
Not good.
Not knowing you've committed an act of war by getting lost.
Not good.
Not knowing the origins of lipstick on your collar noticed by spouse.
Not good.
Not knowing how fast you were going when the Traffic Nazi asks.
Not good.
Not knowing how much is in the account when you cut that check.
Not good.

Knowing that you don't know what you said you know and using it to influence how other people know or don't know things, then having a reporter know that you don't know, who in turn let's everyone know you don't know.

Well, that's just Wiki-scandalous.

It's not what you know, it's what you don't know. I suppose those are the same thing. Then again, maybe they're not.

Let's say you sponsor the re-authorization of the Patriot Act. You just might want to know what's in there.

Or, you are the Congressional Research Service / Library of Congress writing the "USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization in Brief" you should know what's in there.

Or better yet, when you're any of those people and you're confronted with something you didn't know was in there, you should be able to know how it got there.

For the moment, put aside the common arguments about the Patriot Act and Civil Liberties. Instead let us address the Reauthorization changed the process for appointment of interim US Attorneys. You knew that right?

Briefly: Previous to the Reauthorization, should a US Attorney have left the position, the replacement would go through a Confirmation process in the Senate. If this did not occur within a certain period, the Judges for the respective District were empowered to appoint one.

Back to the present, however, the Reauthorization changed this. Now, the appointments are for the duration of the Presidents term and there is no confirmation requirement.

No confirmation means the Senate doesn't know anything about these appointees. That could be bad. What's worse is the Senate (and the House for that matter) don't know how this happened. Should they know? Yes, they're the ones who did it. Now, that's realllly bad.

The Constitutional issues surrounding the new and improved appointment process are a worthwhile discussion of their own. Sub-topics of Congressional Oversight, the Separation of Power, and impropriety with influence are all worthy. I'll leave that up to someone else.

Instead, I'll just make fun of Congress. It's great to watch the Elected as they bitch and moan about how bad this change is for the known universe. Especially in light of the fact that it was their idea. They just didn't know it was their idea. Unless of course, it wasn't their idea, and they just don't know what the hell they're doing most of the time. The latter being my choice.

"Ignorantia juris non excusat"

Ignorance of a law is not a valid defense when a reasonable person in the same circumstance would know such an act or omission would constitute a violation of law. The governed populace is held accountable to the enacted statutory law. Offering a defense of "I didn't know" isn't valid.

Applying such a legal theory to the Legislators-with-their-panties-in-a-bunch; they have no defense to not knowing. Unless of course, (I may be on to something here) they aren't covered by the "reasonable person" standard. Yes that must be it. Clearly the best tactic Congress can apply to their defense at this point is to admit they're idiots. "We the Congress today enter an Alford Plea of guilty to the charge of being nincompoops."

"It isn't possible for a member of Congress to read every word of every bill."

I'll give you that. It's true. Given the current speed of deforestation by legislative activity, it certainly would not be possible to read each of those oh-so-enjoyable works of governing wonder.

There is something then, that can be fixed.

1. Current legislation is written so technically and verbose that it makes impossible to understand on it's face. Certainly, much of this is done to eliminate loopholes, but it also creates them and further renders the whole affair intangible. Legislation after enactment must commonly be interpreted by an intermediate who offers the opinion as de facto law.

2. There is no real enforcement of bill spirit vs. content in legislative administration. It's not an easy task on it's honorable side as there is so much to administer. On the less than honorable side wherein appropriations for angry, purple, lesbian, chinchilla breeding are tagged on as part of the NASA budget, it's not even attempted. However, if you don't want to be hoodwinked again and you want to restore some credibility to the institution, enforce content focus.

3. Lastly, don't write so much. Yes, you were sent there to represent the interests of your constituents. You went there with projects. You have pressing issues which need to be addressed. The issues addressed in the "Geneva Distinctive Emblems Protection Act of 2006" were keeping everyone up in terror until you resolved it. It may have prevented an Austrian invasion-by-accident of Liechtenstein. For that, we are all grateful.

4. If you sponsor a bill, you damn well better read the whole thing. Better yet, you should have to recite it from memory. AND if someone asks you (Sen Specter - sponsor) how this appeared in the final compromise version, you should have a better answer than " I don't know"


  • (Sec. 502) Modifies provisions regarding U.S. attorney vacancies to provide that a person appointed shall serve until the qualification of a U.S. attorney for the district (currently, until the earlier of that time or the expiration of 120 days after appointment by the Attorney General).

5. If you don't have time to read it, don't vote on it. It must not be that important. If you had read it, you would have avoided the embarrassment of complaining about the result as Senator Feinstein has done with the Appointment Issue within the Reauthorization.

She voted for it. Did I mention she co-sponsored the Senate Bill for it? It's okay though, she didn't know.

Tuesday, March 6, 2007

environs politik

I'd like to think I may have coined a phrase. However, there are problems abound with such a thought.

The first is it is presumptious. Not only because there is a likelyhood I am not the first to say it - given the likehood of impending dateline for the reaching of critical mass of infinite-monkey-time-and-typewriter scenarios. By the way, I like much of the monkey's work.

But also presumptious because coining a phrase implies someone else gives a shit, uses it, and adds veracity by their use. Coining a phrase depends not as much on the person saying it, but of others accepting it and putting it to their own use. It's anathema to copyright and fact-checking.

"The phrase has no value unless I agree with it."

Which oddly enough, is very similar to the phrase of instant. "Environs politik" My thought process (which any reader of this blog should surely question) leads me through a review of belief systems, point of view, subjectiveness, and absolute truth and how each of these affect one's opinion on any given matter.

It is not the same as situational ethics or moral relativism. I interpret the works of Fletcher and Doris to impune the their title holder as 1) doing something wrong or immoral and 2) the holder values subject to change. Addressing the 2nd point, if the value changes it either 1) denies an absolute truth or 2) veres from that truth and makes the value wrong or immoral.

Not to push the Abortion Flame Post Button, but consider this:

There is much heated dislike, name calling, and flat hatred in the debate of Reproductive Rights v. Right to Life. Both edges of the proponents commonly label eachother as lacking in knowledge. Commonly as unbelievers from a faith standpoint or as uneducated and in denial from a scientific standpoint.

Back to monkeys though. And their requisite issued wrench. The two sides in the Abortion debate will incestently hurl insults unless they can be convinced of one thing. When does the (insert term here) become a human life?

When I wrote (insert term here) your environs politik may have betrayed your belief and provided the term. Either embyro, child, baby, fetus etc.

Can you really say I'm a bad person if I believe life starts at conception? If I do believe that, then how can you disparrage me for trying to protect a human life? Inversely, if I believe life begins at XX weeks or whenever, can someone be blamed for the distrust of Pro-Life people wishing to interfere with a woman's medical choices.

I am certainly not trying to hash out the abortion debate. Rather, I am making a point about how one's personal experience, upbringing, and other influences define their decision making process.

There are certainly societal norms. Perhaps varying between societal groups. Again, a function of the environs politik.

My next example. I originally posted this on 09/17/2006 as a Live QnA response to the question: What is a terrorist?

The word terror originates from Old French, Middle English, and Latin meaning "to Frighten" and implies an intense fear. Today's popular use of the word is somewhat subjective and the use is rarely self applied, rather it is applied by someone other than the person being so labled.

In my opinion, a terrorist is someone who is:
1) A member of a group not widely recognized as a nation.
2) Uses violence, fear, intimidation, or similar actions.
3) Intentionally, without regard or remorse targets both Military and Civilian
4) Those acts are considered criminal by the Government in place where the act occured
5) And the acts are conducted to pursue some idealistic political, social, or religious goal.

I think the term is a label which is truly subjective. Please don't take this to mean I support such behavior, as I find such acts to be disgusting. Rather, I mean the term is commonly applied by the victors or those in power. In the histories of many nations there are those people who are heralded as "freedom fighters" or "heros" when the person applying the term believes in what the "terrorist" has done.

The same "perception based value" can be seen in civil wars. If a group successfully breaks away, it's a war of Independence. If the nation is held together, it's a Civil war.

My last opinion is this: The intentional targetting of civilian peoples to pursue a political goal by a group who can not bring about change through internationally accepted means is diabolical.


I used the term "perception based value" in that response. I didn't feel it adequately represented what I meant. I believe "environs politik" does. Bizzare, however it may be since I brought it up, I don't think it applies to terrorism as I define it.

As I see it, envrions politik applies no fault. It only works for me when the resultant action does not strike me as "immoral". Then again, immoral implies an absolute truth which will vary on one's environ politik.

If I consume beef in the US it is one thing, in India quite another. The acceptance of felines, dogs, pork, cheese on a hamburger, and onward elicit varied responses. Those responses and tangential legalism are likely results of the environ politik.

I think it's a useful phrase. Your assistance in veracity addition is welcomed. Less it should suffer the fate of hapax legomenon.

Monday, March 5, 2007

hapax legomenon

Where is Burke when you need him? Which Burke? James Burke of course.

Here is a man who puts Johnny Cochran's logical progressions to shame. If Burke said angry, purple, lesbian, chinchillas were the origin of the Space Shuttle program, then you had best believe him. In fact, I believe he did say that's how it happened.

If Burke said the Internet didn't exist and I read that on his website, then it would be that much more factual.

So what is it I need Mr. Burke to do? I need Burke to keep track of what the hell I was doing a few minutes ago. Burke is likely the only one who could research my dysfunctional thought process that started with a topic for today's blog entry and ended up with the phrase: "hapax legomenon".

So in a Connections-esque blog entry for the day we start with the Democratic Republic of Congo. A nice enough place, but in fact home to the deadliest conflict since World War II. While one may surprised to learn this, especially with it's neighbors of Sudan and Rwanda and their mastery of genocide, Congo has been passed around by Dictators, Superpowers, and Colonialists - leading it to it's present station.

In a short modern history, Congo was a Belgian Colony until 1960. They repackaged themselves in 1971 as Zaire. They went through much turmoil and turnover until a series of wars beginning in 1996 until July of 2006 (now referring to themselves as Congo Classic) when they held their first free elections since Belgian Independence.

Every good new administration needs a cabinet. You need a minister for this that and the other thing. The other thing just happened to be Trade.

Enter Andre Kasongo Ilunga. This guy is the bomb. He's 34 and excellently qualified. Nothing hidden in his background. No previous positions on issues to raise a stink. No illegitimate children. No major financial interest in Enron, Haliburton, or Disney. He's never smoked a cigar so we don't have to worry about Monica.

In fact, he is the perfect man for the job. He will never do anything along the Gaff-line, because.. well because he doesn't exist. That could be a problem for some. I think he's perfect though. He won't ever lie to anyone about what happened.

You see, Ilunga was the creation of Honorius Kisimba Ngoyof. He wanted the job. But the rules required the party provide two candidates. So Kisimba creates Ilunga as the second option. Surely they wouldn't pick Ilunga over him.

You can make the argument that this is "gaming the game". Within a framework of rules and norms there may be undefined conduct. This conduct is neither legal and allowed or illegal and disallowed. In fact gaming the game, generally is a means to end where the action adheres to the rules but was an abortion of a mechanism intended to inhibit some other action.

Next, gaming the game lead me to Google Bombing. The practice of doctoring a web page so it ranks higher in search results. Its quite a sport. Imagine searching for Chevrolet where the top 25 results were Ford pages.

Not far removed from the Google Bomb is Googlewhack or Googlewhacking. You enter a query into the search engine of 2 words. Both words must be in the search engines repertoire. A successful Googlewhack returns only one result. ( http://www.googlewhack.com/rules.htm )

This brings us to the hapax legomenon. A googlewhack is the miserable progression of such a thing.

From Ancient Greek ‘(something) said only once’. Noun. A word occurring only once in a given corpus. There is a lovely technical term for a word that appears once in a body of text: a hapax legomenon (plural: hapax legomena), Greek for “once said.” The term comes from philology, the study of old texts. — Steven Pinker, Words and Rules page 172.

It's Shakespeare's fault. Ask Costard about Honorificabilitudinitatibus. Better yet, ask Burke. It's something to do with the aforementioned chinchillas.

Sunday, March 4, 2007

Some scenarios

Scenario 1.

You walk into the local diner with some friends. You invited more but only a few came. You told your friends you had a coupon for a free meal for all. The food is okay. The service is somewhat lacking. You start looking through your wallet for that coupon.

The problem is you don't have that coupon. You knew that going in there. In fact, you're not sure you ever had it. Other patrons are staring and pointing fingers. Perhaps you thought your friend who is a waitress might help you out.

Slowly, your friends start to realise you don't have that coupon or any money whatsoever. Those friends begin to slip out the door. Now you're wondering if you should do the same.

Scenario 2.

You're a younger, suave, male with great aspirations and noble ideals. You befriend a stunning young lady who trusts you without question. You mistake infatuation for love. She lives in an abusive home and was looking for security. You tell her you will always be there for her and this is the ultimate act to express that love.

As in all "After-School-Specials" you fail to wear the appropriate protective gear. That stunning young lady is now carrying a child. Her parents reject her along with her friends and peers. She wants to keep the baby and she wants your help.

You expected a quick, enjoyable, relationship. Now everyone is telling you to run.

Scenario 3

You're a surgeon who has begun a heart transplant. Admittedly, the heart had problems. It was causing the lungs to work more than they should. Instead, you (the surgeon) tell the patient the heart has to be replaced because the brain-heart widget is broken. Being wondrous studies of anatomy and physiology, we know there is no brain-heart widget. However, the patient is on the table, you have removed the heart, and Oh? Did I mention we don't have a donor?

The point.

In each situation you have done something you perhaps should not have done. You are responsible for the situation, if not fully, at least in part. You made the mess. You clean it up.

Just because you may have created the mess under less than honorable motives, it does not absolve you of your responsibilities.

That said, make WMD the coupon. Iraq the diner. Iraq the poor girl and stability and sovereignty the child. Or, lastly, Iraq is the patient.

Many activists are calling for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq because the pretense for the invasion is lacking in veracity at a minimum.

Well too bad. You've eaten the meal, the young lady is expecting, and you better find a suitable heart.

The withdrawal of forces from Iraq will not rectify any injustice incurred. Certainly, it will only amplify the problem. It is naive to think such a withdrawal will improve the situation. In a politically unstable region such as the middle east where human rights violations abound, such a withdrawal would lead to greater chaos. Chaos which undoubtedly would lead to a larger theater war destined to re-draw the US military into a larger and likely more distasteful engagement.

Perhaps the conflict is about oil. Fair enough. Get off your high horse... Scratch that. Get on your high horse and stop driving yourself to work. Stop running your PC 24/7 and using up power generated from fossil fuels. It is easy to take the road of nobility when you don't have to be accountable for your personal actions.

Anyone who purports to believe a complete and unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would improve the situation needs to lay off the psychoactives. The world is a shitty place. Yes, hindsight clearly shows there are better routes. Guess what though? You can't go back. It's done.

It is incredibly irresponsible and immoral not to clean up this mess.

The phone call...

Clearly no one cares about the sovereignty of Liechtenstein.

The problem is, the Swiss don't even have the common decency to at least generate some sort of hoopla about yellow cake and WMD. Actually, I think the current administration should take note on how to handle this sort of thing. There's a lesson to be learned.


That lesson is: if you have a really good reason to invade somewhere, but don't want to share it, just tell the invaded "My bad."

For those of you who didn't already know, Switzerland invaded Liechtenstein during the early hours of March 2nd 2007. It's not a big deal and you can rest assured, they didn't mean it. One might say it is "Friendly Fire Imperialism".

A spokesman for the Swiss Army, Daniel Reist, told the Associated Press "We've spoken to the authorities in Liechtenstein and it's not a problem."

Liechtenstein Interior Ministry spokesman Markus Amman was quoted as saying no one in Liechtenstein had noticed the invasion. He told AP "It's not like they stormed over here with attack helicopters or something."

This brings up a number of issues. In Liechtenstein, a country with a population of about 34,000 do you really need an "Interior Ministry Spokesman"? I'm guessing they could save some money and just have the Interior Minister do it themselves.

The second issue is it's apparently not actually an official act of war unless you "[storm] with attack helicopters or something."

It's quite the precedent.

Austria (Liechtenstein's other border) take note. If I'm the head of random invasion planning for the Austrian Military, I'm going to go ahead and march a battalion of attack-helicopter-less ninjas into downtown Liechtenstein and yell "Oli-Oli-Ox-In-Free! You're mine now bitch!"

Lastly, how exactly does that phone call play out?

Amman: Liechtenstein Interior Ministry. We don't have an army. Markus Amman speaking. How may I direct your call?

Reist: Yeah. Ummm. Markus..... This is Daniel Reist over at the Swiss Army...

Amman: (Interrupting) Hey, I thought you guys were neutral. You have an Army?

Reist: Uh... yeah. Well, that's the thing. We uh... well, we kinda invaded you. But it was an accident.

*Silence*

Amman: Sir, this is Liechtenstein's Interior Ministry. Did you mean to call France instead? Yes. That must be it. I think you have the wrong number. If you've invaded someone and need to tell them, I expect you want France instead. Let me find that numb......

Reist: No. No, I have the right number. You see some of our Army...

Amman: You have an Ar...


Reist: Yes Damn it. Now listen. Like I said, we didn't mean it.

Amman: Uh. OK. Well... We hadn't noticed. Will you be staying long? What are your demands? Please, do understand we're a little short on insurgents right now, if that's what you were hoping to find.


Reist: Actually, we already left.

Amman: I see. I was wondering why I hadn't seen that memo.


Reist: Yeah.... OK, just thought we should let you know. If you need a watch or a knife or something..

Amman: Great. Well I appreciate it. You sure you don't want the French number while I have you on the line?

As you can clearly see the route to avoid international condemnation is to say "Ooops."

Collision Avoidance Theory

(Originally posted 12/18/2006)

You see the problem is this:

Well no. Actually you're wrong. It's not so much a problem as it is an issue that, when inappropriately addressed, the results are problematic.

What are we talking about? Please do try and stay on task.

Theres no such thing as a solid object. Those of you who have collided with one of these supposed objects may beg to differ. But again, it's a failure to adequately respond to your environment.

All matter is made up of smaller bits, which themselves are in fact not actually bits but because you had an rather unfortunate experience with the baseball, lead you to believe they are in fact; bits. None the less, matter isn't real. Rather its a poor explanation of the resultant forces of energy and to explain such things as variations in mass. You can not divide by zero, and subsequently any therom or formula which involves the author referring to a value which represents nothing is avoided. Why would you want to do that? Who cares to learn about nothing...

...scratch that and keep reading.

Is there a point to this? Yes. Just slow your horses rocketman.

All these non-entities with which you collide daily, hourly, and in fact at all times are a collection of successively lesser collections. To wit, substances are made of atoms, atoms of sub-atomic particles like electrons, protons, and neutrons. Protons and Neutrons (composite particles) in turn are made from quarks. Up quarks, down quarks, charm, strange, top and bottom. Gluons hold together quarks. This goes on and on and on, but you didn't read this to enlighten yourself to string theory.

You have all these little (non)bits, which are truly just instances of energy, racing around like a 3 year old on Christmas Eve with a box of raw cool-aid mix. They can't be everywhere at once. In as much there is a point where the bits of this oh-so-rude impeding object would match inversely those of yourself.

So there is what you define as a problem. How do I get to a point where my bits dont match those bits. (No, not what your thinking.) The odds of you arranging your bits as needed is near infinitum. That being said, speed up.

Infinity is a cool number. Its a result of some real (albeit indescript) number plus more. Well it was a while ago, as it continually increases.

Its kinda like Lotto. If you have a combination, the constiuants made of 6 numbers chosen from 01-49 as does Washington, your chances for each attempt are 1: 6,991,908. Luckily, you dont have to get them in order. Requiring order increases the odds to 6,991,908 to the 48th power. Thats with 49 numbers and 6 positions.

Now take the number of bits you have and the number of positions each can hold, which in itself is actually infinite unless we accept some standardization. You will have to accept it, or this wont work. Following the probability function we used for Lotto, you end up with a really really really large number (squared for good measure). Then having chosen your object of impending collision calculate its positional probability. Now find out where they dont match. You may be in luck that there is more than one. Given the amount of wasted space in varied levels of energy shells, your luck is not all that bad.

And here my devoted readers is the secret for which you have suffered reading. To pass through any object at any time, just simply speed up the energy state of your (non)bits to infinite. Once you do that, you will easily pass through anything, anywhere, at any time....

....wait time isn't real either.

Not writing.

(Originally posted 12/17/2006)

I haven't written anything for a while, you say?

Yes, it's true. But it's not for a lack of want. The human took away my internet "privileges" after the incident with the Johnson's rabbit. I don't think it was fair, but apparently I have no say in the matter and there's no Gunner-Legal-Defense-Fund. Oh sure, a sitting President can do strange things with a cigar and an intern and his wife will help raise money to defend him. But Me? Not so much.

Well, on to other things.

I was allowed into the house again because it was windy. That lasted until I tried to help the human not waste so much good stuff. Humans are strange in that way. They put all sorts of yummy things in plastic bags under whatever a "Kitchen Sink" is. But you try and help them not waste that good stuff, and simply set up a floor-buffet to share and the hummies lose their minds. Wasteful, wasteful creatures. Anyway, Im back outside.

So with a little time on my paws again, I've been thinking. Many of you may think it rediculous that a dog without opposible thumbs can type. Rediculous? Talk about the pot and kettle -you're the one reading what I write.

The yippy Dachsund neighbors are arguing again. They never shut up. If you're gonna bark about something at least make it worthwhile, like a tennis ball, or flashing lights, or food, or cars, or motorcycles, or people, sirens, or oh better yet just to annoy the human.

The human thought he would be funny by bringing home a stuffed dog. Don't laugh, those things are scary. I had to stay barricaded in my Dogloo for about 30 mins.

Online music stores suck. I want to get a decent track and I cant. The only place I can get Nightwish's Everdream is through a website in Hong Kong and the hummie keeps noticing when I swipe his credit cards. I want a pay raise so I can have my own credit cards. Admittedly, I get a number of card offers in the mail, but the postman and I don't get along so.... What? Its genetic!!! He's hooked up with the penguins!!!

Speaking of penguins, let's address Gwen Stefani. There really isn't a link here, but hey; its Gwen Stefani. I don't have to write anything about her, because you should already know. If you don't then stop reading here.

Minions. I need some.

From Wikipedia (its on the internet so its true.) ( Minion )

The word Minion is recorded in English since 1501, "a favorite; a darling; a low dependant; one who pleases rather than benefits" [Johnson], from M.Fr. mignon means a favorite, pet or spoiled person. The word is adapted from the Middle French mignon "a favorite, darling", also "dainty, pleasing, favorite" as an adjective, from Old French mignot, itself possibly from Italian mignone. Anyway the ultimate origin is doubtful- connections with the Old High German minna 'love' and with a Celtic root min- 'small' have been suggested. It was used without disparaging overtones in the 16th-17th centuries.

In modern English the word minion almost always refers to a person of a lower order, especially in relation to work. The "office minion" referring to a subordinate office worker.

Come on, I mean ask yourself "What supreme evil oberfeldmarshal doesn't have minions? Blofeld? Yup he had em. Hell, even Bond (a supposed good guy) had em. Sure he worked for "M" but thats only a plot tool. And since he's just a tool, M is a minion. In fact, I wouldn't be too far off-base to suggest that M stands for minion.

Sean Connery, since we're on the topic - is 007. Not Lazenby. Moore, Dalton, Brosnan are right out. We'll see about Craig. I guess there's hope for him, he has his own list right?

Van Halen is going to tour with David Lee Roth again. Hmm. Im guessing that lasts about point 5 shows. Hopefully they replace him with Gwen Stefani at that point. She'd be a better David Lee Roth than David. Heck, she is the only other one who could pull off Bond.

I'm currently working on investing my touche to make it a 3 or 4 che. The che market is pretty decent right now.

So maybe you came here looking for my latest rant on pyroelectric fusion? Many people do, but alas you may be sorely disappointed. Instead I shall treat you to ramblings about the safety of travelling at infinite speed.

Penguins, Ponies, Clowns, and Schrodingers Cat.

1. Clowns are bad. They just are. In fact clowns are likely involved in the greater penguin conspiracy. I have it on good authority the anti-Christ may well be a clown, be friends with a clown, or at some point have been to the circus.

2. Penguins. Why in the crapdiggity are there no UN Observers for these "oh-so-cute" little bastards? Sure, they come across as cute in their little tuxedo costumes, waddling around looking harmless. As soon as the camera leaves though, oh yeah, they're building nukes. The reason everyone thought the North Korean test was so small was because the PDIA (oh sorry - Penguin Defense Intelligence Agency) called up Kim Jong Il and said "Dude. You craim you did this. No one wirr know it was us then." Subsequently, this made the seismometer data be interpreted incorrectry er... incorrectly. While the LBWB (Little Black and White Bastards) successfully lit-off a 300gazillion megaton weapon.

3. Ponies. The world needs more ponies. But no more clowns. Clowns will steal your soul. (It's true. It's on wikipedia somewhere.)

4. Schrodinger's cat. WTF? Why spend that much energy on the whole thing. Surely we know an atom will decay within that period.

5. Time travel. If you divide time (T) by unit of time as infinitum (u) you define all the possible segregations of time. Lets assign these each a identifier starting at 2. (1 is a bad number. See below) So, number from 2 to infinity, we can define all time with a unique identifier. Lets call those time channels. If time travel is possible it cannot be invented. Well, not now at least. You see if time travel is possible it has already happened on a different channel which you failed to subscribe to. You cannot go back in time, because you failed to subscribe during the special promotion and instead someone else has done it already. But in the future. But then again, there is no future because if it is possible you could go forward to the point where it is possible, but then it would have happened in the past. Again, you screwed up, time is irrelevant, and you didn't bring the correct remote to watch the right channel. Jackass.

6. The number One. Recently it has become very apparent the number "one" is, quite frankly, full of shit. It has been presenting itself as the first real number when in fact it is absolutely no different than 0.99e+inf. There is in fact no way to distinguish itself from what it purports to be a "lesser recurring decimal."