christophe thinks out loud

Well, that's alright then.

From the BBC:

The Senate has passed legislation banning torture, but the Bush administration is seeking an exemption for the CIA spy agency.

"We do not torture and therefore we're working with Congress to make sure that as we go forward, we make it more possible to do our job," Mr Bush said.

That makes sense. We do not torture, so we need an exemption for the CIA so that they could torture to do their jobs, even though they don't.

T-Rex Explains It All To You

Dinosaur Comics has the definitive statement on Intelligent Design.

What the hell am I coming to?

I'm agreeing with Andrew Sullivan.

The Entire Right-Wing Blogosphere, Summarized in a Small Number of Easy Bullet Points, So You Don't Have To Read Any of It.

• Someone on the left said a silly thing on their blog, therefore, Bush is God.
• What, you want the terrorists to win?
• I guess you want the government to do everything for you, huh?
• Yeah, well, Clinton got a blow job in the Oval Office, so there!
• That's OK, us rich white Christian men are used to being oppressed in the United States.

The Truth About Falsifiability

One of the key criticisms tossed over at Intelligent Design is that it is not "falsifiable." Needless to say, this results in a considerable amount of hairsplitting over exactly what "falsifiable" means and why it is important. This usually gets tangled up in a big hairball over experimental sciences vs field-work sciences, etc., etc.

But it's really not that complicated.

The core questions that one must ask about any theory, of any kind, that is proposing to offer a view of the world are:

• If this theory is true, what things that we do not already know would we expect to find out in the world?
• What things, out in the world, would convince us that this theory is false, if found?

For example, general relativity has proven exceptionally resistant to being tossed out the door by those criteria. It predicted gravitational lensing; gravitational lensing was dutifully found. Experiments were constructed that would falsify general relativity; those experiments did not come back with data that indicated that general relativity was false.

The problem with Intelligent Design is that the answers to those questions are, respectively, "Anything we find proves it" and "there is nothing that could possibly be found that would prove that it is not true, because it is." Thus, claiming that it is science (or, indeed, investigation at all) is absurd. If my theory is that the world is made up of some wonderful substance called Splorg, and every single fact that has or ever will exist demonstrates that the world is, indeed, made up of Splorg because that's the way I say it is . . . well, as a professor of mine once said, "Now that you know that, what do you know?"

As Simon Blackburn points out in his wonderful book Truth, one of the ways we know something is "true" is that it gives us purchase over the world. We know the germ theory of disease is true, in part, because assuming the truth of it has given us near-miraculous weapons against disease. We know that electrons are "true" because assuming that such things as electrons has given us astonishing ability to control electricity. And we know evolution is "true" because it has allowed us to explain things that were simply inexplicable before.

It's impossible to decouple religion from Intelligent Design not because we're all trying to paint people who believe it in as some kind of religious weirdos, but because the argument is, in essence, a faith-based argument: It's true because I believe it to be true, and nothing will ever shake me of this belief, because I know it in my heart to be true.

That's a statement of faith, not science. Anyone who says that a theory must be true and nothing could possibly show otherwise isn't doing science.

Zero-Sum Society

Ah, screw it. I'm just going to link to all of the posts on Legal Fiction, like this one on what the Bush administration has done to political discourse in the country. It will save me tons of time.

Between a Rock and a Hard Place

Over at this post, I found this commentary about Intelligent Design:

Suppose Fred and Barney find a funny-shaped rock and Fred says that the rock is natural while Barney says that it is man-made. Fred can't just end the argument by saying, "I'm sorry, the theory that the rock is man-made is not falsifiable so that is not a scientific theory."

Is that right? If Fred does say that, is that science?

And by the way, do I have to be a raging fundamentalist Xtian to even pose the question?

While I'm sure that the illustration was well-intended, it doesn't really capture the argument in favor of Intelligent Design.

Allow me.

Fred and Barney, two associate professors of geology, are walking along the Giant's Causeway, looking at the amazing polygonal basalt pillars. Barney points out that so many exactly regular pillars must have an intelligent designer, because that kind of regularity is traditionally associated with man-made objects. Fred replies that while it is true that regular polygons are often made by humans, they can also be formed by processes that are entirely unintelligent, and in fact the mechanism by which these pillars formed into regular polygons is well understood. Fred goes on to point out that just because something "looks like it should be designed" doesn't mean that it must be.

Barney points to a particular column that has seven sides, instead of the usual six, and demands to know, then, why this particular pillar has seven sides instead of six, if a well-understood natural process created them. Fred says that he doesn't know why this particular pillar has seven sides, but the process by which the sides vary is not the least bit unusual.

Barney cries out in triumph! "Well, there's a huge gap in your theory, my friend! You can't explain why this pillar has seven sides, so your entire theory about crystalizing lava is full of holes, and isn't the least bit scientific! It's just dogma!" Fred, a very patient man, points out that even if this was an example of a gap in understanding, which it really isn't, a gap in knowledge is not the same thing as clear contradictory data, and that it would be absurd to throw out all of vulcanology because of a gap in data.

Further, Fred explains, even if a truly contradictory data point is discovered, it is rarely the case that such data requires an entire scentific theory to be discarded in its entirety, as Barney is proposing.

"Well, there's at least a controversy, and I demand that you teach the controversy!" Barney says. Fred points out that the only reason the "controversy" exists because Barney has created it, and that's not the same as an honest dispute between opposing theories. If every single possible supposition, no matter how, ah, non-standard was taught in school, science class wouldn't get beyond whether or not to do your exams in pen or pencil.

"You're just being blind and dogmatic!" Barney cries out, and races off to publish papers about how the pillars were clearly designed by intelligence because they look like they should be. Barney is denied tenure and the papers aren't published, because they don't add anything to the science of geology. Barney claims that this is a clear example of the dogmatic anti-Christianity of the scentific establishment, even though he's the one who brought up the whole Christian thing and he claims that his theory isn't the least bit Christian, anyway.

Barney does, however, go on Fox, where the interviewer pats him on the head and tells him how horrible it was that he was denied tenure because of anti-Christian bias, even though later in the same program the interviewer complains about "moonbat" professors that can't be gotten rid of because of the stupid system of "tenure."

The Missouri Board of Education passes a regulation requiring that both views of how the Giant's Causeway was created be taught in school. The Board claims this has absolutely nothing to do with religion, even though they have never expressed any interest whatsoever in any other scientific "controversy," real or imagined, and they kept trying to get the "God Created the Giant's Causeway" hypothesis taught before the Supreme Court slapped them down.

Fred, tired of spending his time explaining to reporters why there is no real controversy among scentists instead of actually doing research, moves to France. "Good riddance!" cry the Intelligent Designers. The USGS closes down its earthquake prediction programs due to lack of qualified geologists, and Missouri is devastated by an 9.0 earthquake on the New Madrid fault.

Scientsts everywhere, reading about this earthquake, wonder if there might be something to this intelligent design stuff, after all.

The arguments against gay marriage have no intellectual merit, part 3.

So, we're all a-twitter over here in California because Arnie vetoed a bill which would have created same-sex marriage in California. (And thanks to Miss Atilla for linking to a post that got me riled up enough to write about it. Isn't the blogosphere great?)

First, sadly, Arnie kind of has a point here (and I'm no fan of Arnie). The bill as written flatly contradicts a voter initiative (Proposition 22) defining marriage as only between a man and a woman (of course, it doesn't define those terms, so TGs may have an interesting court case to bring). The argument that the initiative only applied to out-of-state marriages is, in the precise legal term, silly.

Second, yes, of course this was done (in part) to put Arnie between a rock and a hard place: veto it, and look like a bigot, or sign it, and enrage the Neanderthals in the California Republican Party (motto: "Death before election victory!"). That's realpolitik. Boo-hoo, Arnie, that's what being a politician in this state is all about. Cope.

Third, there are no good arguments against allowing same-sex couples to marry. None. We've been over this before.

Fourth, we're well into the blaming-the-victim stage of this particular part of the civil rights evolution. "If those darn activists would just shut up and accept the second-class rights we've given them, none of this would have happened." I must admit that I do not find that particular patronization a compelling argument.

Lastly, what is so great about these voter initiatives prohibiting gay marriage is that they allow the (quite bigoted, let's not mince words) anti-gay-marriage types to sidestep the issue. Rather than actually talk about why gay marriage isn't a good idea, and actually display their bigotry live on stage, they get to defer to the vast wisdom of the electorate.

"My opinion on gay marriage doesn't matter! It's the voters! They've spoken, and we all must completely obey their view in all things! No matter what! In the entire history of the United States, the voters have never once ever done anything with which I disagree. Please, let's not talk about it anymore."

Proposition 22 was a bad law, and I don't care if every straight person in California voted for it. It's still a bad law. Gay activists have every right to try to find a way around it. Whether Leno was clever or craven in introducing the bill from a realpolitik perspective, he was utterly and completely right to do so from a moral perspective, and hats off to him for doing so.

Very Good Things about Katrina

• I am very impressed with Legal Fiction, and his very good article about Katrina and racism. I am trying not to be jealous that the guy is only 28 and this articulate.
• And, of course, Fafblog is perfect.

Bush to lead inquiry into Katrina

Bush to lead inquiry into Katrina.

No doubt we can look forward to a speedy resolution. In other news . . .

• Donald Rumsfeld to investigate claims of torture by the US military.
• Vladimir Putin to lead inquiry into whether the prosecution of Mikhail Khodorkovsky was politically motivated.
• Silvio Berlusconi to lead commission on the ties between the Italian government and the media.
• Robert Mugabe to lead blue-ribbon panel on Zimbabwe election reform.

Retail Therapy

Back in the day when I had an honest job, I worked for a dot com consultancy in London.

Our largest project, by far, was for one of the largest retail chain in the UK. We were, of course, fighting the clock to get this huge new site launched for them. It was getting close to Christmas, and the infrastructure melted down. I don't remember the details (I wasn't actually on the project at the time), but the infrastructure team was working around the clock trying to get it going again.

And where was the team leader, the architect responsible for the infrastructure? Oh, up north, hanging out, smoozing with the client. He didn't want to come down. The trains weren't very safe, you know. It was the holidays. Anyway, the team could handle it.

Now, let us talk about what "leadership" is. The claim was made that the architect really couldn't do much to fix the problem, and that was perhaps true (which, of course, is an interesting observation all in itself). But this person also had pretenses of being a leader of men, a manager, and that is a different job that requires different behavior than just poking at boxes with blinking lights.

In particular, leadership requires leading, and leading requires a presence. It didn't matter if he could have personally participated in fixing the problem. Show up. Make tea. Demonstrate to the team that you care for them, that they are not alone, that they will pull through this and you have faith in them. That's what a leader does.

Now, let's talk about what a leader doesn't do.

We move on to the Secretary of State of the United States, Condi Rice. What has she being doing during the greatest disaster in this country since 9/11?

Shopping.

Now, the Bush Administration excuse machine is in high gear, and I'm sure we'll be treated to a litany of them. "The Secretary of State doesn't handle domestic matters." "Everything was under control." "She had important business at the UN."

Which might all be true, and which is all completely, utterly unimportant and irrelevant.

No, New Orleans did not require Condi Rice to show up to fly a helicopter. There are people to do that. What a situation like this does require is a leader to show up, and show that she cares. That she'll do everything in her power to help. That she's out calling embassies, getting allies to make promises.

That she cares. That the team is not alone. The team, in this case, being the population of a major American city that has just been devastated.

That's what leaders do. It doesn't matter if she was the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Education or the Secretary of the Office of No Relevance to a Crisis whatsoever. The Secretary of State, the most senior position of the cabinet, is part of the leadership of this country, and when there is a crisis, leaders lead.

They don't shop.

Just for a Moment

Just for a moment, the mask slipped.

This administration has tried very hard to construct an image of being compassionate and competent. It is neither, of course, but the construction of an image has been masterful.

Then, Katrina hit New Orleans, and just for a moment, the mask slipped. We were treated to the image of the President flying the opposite direction, for no apparent reason. We had the Secretary of State shopping for shoes. We had the Vice President being completely invisible. We had pundits saying that the only reason people stayed behind was to loot. We had it pointed out that the head of FEMA was a partisan hack who got fired from his last job of managing horse shows.

Of course, the fax machines started grinding into speed and suddenly, the pundits were changing their tone and Bush was visiting. But just for a brief moment, the fact that this administration is both profoundly incompetent and utterly detached from any possible kind of compassion for the real lives of real people in this country was clear for all to see. It was put into stark relief that the fundamental function of this administration is to deliver wealth to those who are wealthy, and that it does not really have the time for anything else.

The mask was slapped back into place fast enough, but with luck, everyone will remember seeing the skull under it.

I'm with the British on this one.

I think the idea of expelling clerics who advocate terrorism is a great idea.

But who would take Pat Robertson?

Dubya Pays the Rent

If you watch adult movies, or watch adult content on the Internet, and you voted for George Bush, you should be fucking ashamed of yourself.

During Bush's first term, the War on Pornography that John Ashcroft was going to announce on September 11, 2001 (before that became a very, very big news day) was pretty much set aside and forgotten, no doubt because it would have seemed a somewhat questionable use of Justice Department resources.

But the evangelicals, for whom the whole porn thing is a bigger, hotter burning issue than all the US servicemen lost in Iraq, turned out in force in November, and George W. Bush, he pays his bills.

I'm not going into a long, boring technical explaining about the new regulations that the Department of Justice published in early May, and which come into effect on June 23rd. Nominally, of course, they are to Protect the Children. Isn't everything? But, equally of course, they have absolutely nothing to do with protecting children.

What they are trying to do, and what they may well do unless the Supreme Court steps in, is shut down the adult video business.

The reality is that it has become very hard, almost impossible, to get an obscenity conviction anymore. This is not surprising, because it's hard to get anyone to really care about what people watch in their homes. The world has changed, we've all moved on, and obscenity as a crime is starting to sound as quaint as prosecuting someone for blasphemy.

But for the religious right, this issue is never going to go away. This is holy war, and they are going to win this one. And the Bush administration is ready to help. If you can't get an obscenity conviction, what can you do?

You can do what the government does best: Regulate.

You have an adult video at home, right? Of course you do. PIck it up, and look at the case. Somewhere, there's going to be a legend saying something about “18 USC 2257” on it. To make a long story short, that's a law that Congress passed way back in 1988, requiring every producer of adult videos to keep records about every single performer, nominally to prove that the performers were 18 or older at the time of production.

At the time, the regulations were tedious, but not impossible to comply with. The fact that failing to keep the right records was a Federal felony for which you could do 10 years in prison certainly focused everyone's mind.

And, to the DoJ, that was precisely the problem. If they started raiding producers, and the producers had all their records in order and everything was fine, then it would start looking like a big waste of time.

So, they changed the regs. Now, the producer who actually makes the film doesn't just have to keep the documentation. The documentation has to be available for inspection, without notice, at any time between 9am to 5pm Monday through Friday. If they knock on the door at 9am, and you aren't there because you were having your car worked on? 10 years.

Further, now, every single web site, every single magazine that publishes things for which documentation is required must have copies of that documentation. Every single one. Every single document. I'm sure that all the adult models out there are excited by the idea that a webmaster they have never met now will get copies of their driver's license.

It goes on. It is, in fact, impossible to comply with the new regulations. And that's precisely the point. The DoJ doesn't want producers to comply. They want to be able to knock on doors, discover that the documentation wasn't indexed properly (also a requirement of the regs), and toss someone into jail for a few years. They can't knock on every door, but they won't have to: We'll all get the message pretty quickly.

And will this protect children? Oh, please, don't insult anyone's intelligence. I have a news flash: Child pornography was already illegal. There is absolutely nothing in this law or these regulations that was required to put makers of child pornography out of business. People who make child pornography do not put legends on their videos telling the Federal government where their records can be found. This will be as effective a deterrent against actual child pornography as asking someone at passport control if they are planning to blow anything up.

And all of you who voted for George Bush? This is what you voted for. You went into the voting booth, thought carefully, and said, “Yes, I want all makers of adult videos to spend 10 years in Federal prison.” If you somehow manage to persuade yourself that Bush doesn't really care about this, that it's all happening without his consent and encouragement, you are delusional. And if you somehow believe that having a government which is willing to throw people in jail just to pay electoral bills somehow makes you “safer” than the alternative, you are morally deficient.

We are losing our minds

Since “intelligent design” is failing all scientific tests because it is not science, what is a creationist to do? Redefine science to mean pretty much anything you want it to mean. Who knew that Saint Augustine was doing “science”?

For them, the Enlightenment is clearly something that only happened to other people. I weep for my country.

Best wishes, Benedict XVI

The greatest Pope of the 19th Century has been laid to rest. May he rest in peace, and may his successor be the greatest Pope of the 21st.

Oh, well.

RIP, John Paul II

The greatest Pope of the 19th Century has been laid to rest. May he rest in peace, and may his successor be the greatest Pope of the 21st.

The best thing I have read on this sad subject

The BBC's Washington correspondent on the Terri Schiavo case.

The reason the Schiavo case is so important, the reason it has Americans talking and arguing, and the reason it should, in my view, have the rest of us re-assessing our view of this nation, is that Americans were corralled but rebelled.

They were emotionally blackmailed but refused to budge, were told that their deepest held religious beliefs should push them in one direction, but thought for themselves and thought differently.

Still No Signs of Brain Activity from Washington Republicans

From the BBC, which must be wondering what the hell is in the water over here.

The White House has said the law was narrowly tailored and not intended as a precedent for Congress to step into battles over the fate of seriously ill patients.

Of course not. It's only setting the precedent to get involved in those cases in swing states where political grandstanding to shore up a brainlessly reactionary political base is involved. For example, if someone is seriously ill and requires medication that is too expense for them to afford but could be imported from Canada for much less, they are on their own. Medical marijuana to relieve crushing pain? Please, just say no to drugs. We have important things to worry about.

Everything's under control

It's good to know that the United States Congress have solved all the other problems facing this country of ours, and now has time to spend on the use of performance-enhancing drugs by professional athletes and the disposition of one brain-dead woman in Florida.

I'm so proud to be an American today.

He's Right, You Know

A judge has struck down California's law banning the marriage of same-sex couples, saying that “It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners.”

You're Not The Boss Of Me

So, to almost no one's surprise, the judge in the Apple vs. rumor site case ruled that California's journalist shield law does not apply to civil lawsuits over trade secret matters. (Technically, this is not a lawsuit against the blogs, btw, but Apple's attempt to enforce a subpoena against them.)

Of course, one could be forgiven for thinking that the ruling was something else, given the reaction of the blogosphere. For example, SFist stated that the ruling was that “California's shield law ... didn't apply to bloggers ...”. MacWorld went even farther, raising the alarm that the judge “disagreed with lawyers arguements [sic] that online publications are covered by the First Amendment.” (Quote from the RSS summary.)

Woo-hoo! Now we're cookin' with gas! Blogs aren't journalists? Blogs aren't covered by the First Amendment? How dare they! Let's turn our sense of thwarted entitlement up to 11!

Of course, the ruling said neither of those things. What's going on is that there is a free-floating narrative that's been kicking around the blogosphere for a while (given a tremendous boost by the last election), which is:

Blogs are too real journalism! They're more journalism than those stupid old newspapers! We break more news earlier than stupid old newspapers, and no one gives us any respect. No one appreciates how hip and with it and cutting edge we are, and we should get all the same goodies as those stupid old newspapers!

The Apple vs. blog lawsuit was custom-made for that narrative, because it seems to have something to do with the particular status of blogs vs. newspapers (and other traditional journalism). But it doesn't. It has nothing to do with it. Doesn't touch on it at all.

The issue is, was, and always will be in this suit: Does the California journalist shield law offer a defense against a lawsuit brought on the basis of trade secret law? Reasonable people can disagree on this point, but the judge said “no,” and no one should be surprised by this ruling; the case law definitely points that way. The reason that traditional journalists don't often get caught by this is not because the courts are in awe of them; it's because traditional journalists usually don't do stupid things like publish unattributed rumors that are likely to get them sued under trade secret law. (Daring Fireball makes this point far more eloquently than I can.)

So, in fact, this whole case rather contradicts the narrative that blogs aren't being taken seriously. Apple is certainly taking them seriously. What it does mean is that blogs are expected to have the same responsibilities as traditional media, and that means taking it on the chin if they publish things that could get them sued. To act otherwise is to act like an adolescent who starts complaining about their “rights as a human being” as a way of avoiding taking out the trash.

Um, thanks, but...

IRA offers to shoot man's killers.

Is it just me, or is this being somewhat unclear about what an “end to paramilitary activity” means?

Kung Fu Monkey on Canada and Gay Marriage

Read this. It's brilliant.

Ours is a Nation of Laws...

... except those inconvenient ones that keep us from enforcing laws that are more important.

The REAL ID act would place the Secretary of Homeland Security above the law, and allow him to waive any law that he, in his sole discretion, conflicts with national security. It would also eliminate judicial review for this power.

In all likelihood, being a Federal law, it would also allow him to waive any state law.

I'm sure he'll only use this power for good.

(From Fafblog, which rocks.)

What is the Social Security Crisis of which you speak?

That commie, left-ist pinko rag The Economist has a very good editorial on the supposed Social Security “crisis.”

In summary:

1. The system is not going to go bankrupt, even on current predictions.
2. While private accounts may be a virtue for other reasons, they are not required to keep the system solvent.
3. In the short term, private accounts will make the overall government financial position much worse.

The best quote is:

The long-term burden of Mr Bush's first-term tax cuts and spending increases is three times bigger than the looming Social Security shortfall. Pension reform is desirable; but it will not solve America's long-term fiscal problems, and if its political price is an out-of-control budget, that would be a serious mistake.

The focus on private accounts is misguided, but let us not kid ourselves: This plan is about delivering billions (trillions, potentially) of dollars into private financial sector care, a windfall of astonishing proportions. It is a wealth transfer from the government to the rich, which is the defining financial policy of the current administration.

Just another day in liberal San Francisco

In brief, SF Muni fare inspectors and SFPD cops threaten to arrest someone under a non-existent law against taking photographs in Muni stations, and then threaten to trump up a bogus trespassing charge when the photographer refuses to be bullied.

My favorite part is where the cop accuses the photographer of wasting his time.

Oh, now I understand.

This is the best analysis on privatizing Social Security that I have seen. You want to read it, trust me.

It makes far more sense than the actual proposals.

(Via, unsuprisingly, Boing Boing.)

Reasons vs. Excuses

Suppose that a man's wife is murdered. Unhinged by grief over this murder, the husband buys a gun and kills an innocent man who happens to look like the murderer.

In the US' current foreign policy analysis, the husband's act being criminal means that it was, in fact, acceptable that his wife was murdered, and criticism of that murder simply detracts from the criminality of the husband's actions.

By the company he keeps

It's a good thing that we are courting such open, free, democratic societies like, say, Russia, and steering clear of those without democratic experience, like, say, France.

Porn is the crack cocaine of political hearings

I can barely add anything to this great blog post except to repeat a quote that must be one of the most idiotic things in an area full of idiotic things:

From Dr. Mary Anne Layden:

For example, the myth that women are sexually aroused by engaging in behaviors that are actually sexually pleasuring to men is a particularly narcissistic invention of the pornography industry. This is sexual mis-education.

This is not even “Nice girls don’t.” This is “Girls don’t, and only porn makes men think they do.”

One hardly knows where to begin, except to note that, yes, lovers (male or female) often find it arousing to please their partners in sexual ways. If someone doubts the truth of this, this person is as unqualified to make comments about sex as a fish is to comment on the ethics of flying.

What underlies this, of course, is a deeply held belief about sex: Male desire is corrupt and debased, and threatening to civilization. Female desire, as long as it does not resemble male desire, is pure and good. The absolute worst thing, of course, is female desire that resembles male desire, because that means that the woman in question has gone over to the other side; she’s not just an enemy, she’s a traitor.

If you doubt this, I offer two example terms:

• Homewrecker — I mean, it’s not the man who is doing something to destroy a relationship. A man is doing what men do. It’s that woman who is putting her lust ahead of society. Right?
• A woman-owned and -operated sex toy store — Yes, it’s about sex, but it’s OK. It’s good, healthy chick-sex. Unlike male sex. Right?

The single most disturbing letter to the editor that I have read about the election (but probably only because I haven't been looking)

From the November 27th, 2004 issue of The Economist:

The ideological split in America is not between left and right or moral and amoral. Instead, it reflects the world view of the voters. Those with a natural perspective, such as farmers, ranchers, or even child rearers understand the progression of planting seeds, nuturing growth and patience for the harvest. These people tended to vote for Mr Bush. Those who wish the world to resemble a 30-minute sitcom with laugh track tended to vote for John Kerry. This difference is reflected in the distinct geographical distribution of the election results as well as Europe's seeming distain for Mr Bush.

Ah, yes. The good, solid people who till the soil and have a connection to the Land, they understand. The decadent intellectuals who cluster in the cities cannot be expected to. (And, of course, all of Europe is decadent, it goes without saying.)

This sounds very familiar, somehow.

He Almost Made Sense

I was worried there for a moment: I thought George W. Bush had said something I agree with.

Asked, "Can we win?" Bush said, "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

Yes. Precisely. Exactly. This is the most sensible thing I've heard yet out of the Administration on the subject. This not a war in which, one day, we'll lead the tanks in a victory parade down the middle of the enemy's capital. What we want is a world in which terrorism is as unacceptable as slavery is now, and that will be a long, slow slog, and it will require winning hearts and minds more than just dropping bombs.

We are never going to "win" it by just showing that America has superior military power. They know we have superior military power; that's why they are using terrorism instead of conventional warfare.

And if we are always going to be fighting it, we need to acknowledge there are no "temporary" measures: No "temporary" loss of liberty "until the war is over." The "war" will never be over, so if we give up liberty for it, it's gone forever.

Of course, he then retracted the statement. Pfew, that was close.

(Yes, I know that Edwards made political hay out of it. Shame on him, too.)

Who to Vote For?

For me, the decision is stark and easy: George W. Bush wants me in prison. Why in the world would I vote for him?

Some of my more conservative friends will murmur sympathetically that they don't think the War on Pornography is an "appropriate use of resources" or "reflects an administration priority." That's very nice. They can come visit me when I have 6-10 years of my life taken from me. You'll forgive me if I'm a tiny bit resentful if I and the company I've built are among the eggs that need to be cracked in order to shore up Dubya's conservative base.

This is what the "ownership society" means: It's the "I've got mine" society, as in, "Well, my stock portfolio's doing OK, so who cares what happens to anyone else?"

The CBS National Guard Documents

I normally don’t bother just adding a link to another story, but in this particularly nasty time when we have a rather astonishing number of outright lies being circulated in an attempt to make sure the incumbent wins election, and when you have the Speaker of the House of Representatives issuing politically-motivated slander, this one bears linking to: “At least” 90% chance that the CBS National Guard documents are fake.

Updated: The more I read, the more convinced I am that they are, in fact, forgeries, and not particularly good ones. Given that, the question becomes, of course, who is responsible?

• As a (somewhat reluctant) Kerry supporter, I would very much hope it is not his campaign or anyone associated with it, even at the level of the nudge-nudge-wink-wink that the Bush campaign gave the Swifties. If it was anyone who actually does want Kerry to win, it was an astonishingly moronic thing to do.
• It's also possible (and somewhat supported by the utter stony silence from the White House or Bush campaign on the subject) that these were injected into the campaign by someone who is, in fact, pro-Bush. If so, it's very clever: since they're forgeries, they're not damaging, and it grounds out the whole National Guard issue. Next time it comes up, even if the evidence is entirely legitimate, we'll get a tired, world-weary yawn, accompanied by, "Oh, what? More documents?"

I hate this campaign.

The arguments against gay marriage have no intellectual merit, part 2.

Laws do not persuade merely because they threaten.

— Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.

That the California Supreme Court annulled all of the gay marriages performed in San Francisco this year isn’t surprising; like it or not, the law is clear on the subject. Reasonable equal-protection arguments can be raised, just like Lawrence v. Texas, and this is going to end up in the Supreme Court’s lap sooner or later. (My guess is that the current court, at least, will pass on reviewing this particular case, though.)

As previously noted, though, the legalistic argument is not an argument at all; it may be a statement of fact that gay marriage is not legal under California law, but that is not a reason for or against it.

The next argument being considered is that allowing gays to marry “weakens marriage.” Now, in order to “weaken marriage,” unless we are talking about structural damage to some Platonic Ideal of Marriage somewhere in the astral plane, we are talking about weakening marriages.

So, what marriages are we talking about? Precisely which real, non-thought-experiment marriages are going to be harmed by this?

Anyone?

I didn’t think so. I’ve never heard anyone stand up and say, “My marriage will be harmed if gay people are allowed to marry, too, and here is why.” If challenged, it is always something along the lines of, “Well, of course, my marriage is immune to Gay Cooties floating through the aether, but some other marriage might possibly be harmed.”

Bullshit, of course. A thought-experiment relationship can be constructed that will be harmed by gay marriage, or by no-fault divorce, or by Cool-Whip™. So what? I can imagine a person whose life will be destroyed by the existence of Purple.

If we are now going to make things illegal because we can come up with a story about how some unreal person will be harmed if we don’t, we have completely lost it.

Spare Us, Please

This is, of course, completely pointless, but it would be very nice if the froth-at-the-mouth anti-gay types would not attempt to paint New Jersey Governor James McGreevey's resignation as having anything to do with his being gay or not. But, of course, we will be treated to a round of We’re Shocked That He Had An Affair But No Straight Politician (Except Bill Clinton, Who Might As Well Be Gay) Would Have Done That.

And they’re right: A straight politician wouldn’t have resigned over it, because having a heterosexual affair is just barely within the boundary of acceptable behavior for a public figure, whereas having a gay affair isn’t. Apparently, for it to be unacceptable for a straight politician to have an affair, the mistress has to turn up dead.

Anyway, isn’t McGreevey most likely bi? It’s interesting how “gay” or “straight” are the only two options the press seems to be able to digest.

I feel much safer now, part 3.

A security drone on the NY-NJ ferry attempts to confiscate a copy of a role-playing game rulebook for security reasons, saying it is “inappropriate.” RPG player displays admirable cajones in facing down said idiotic security drone.

I wonder what the nice Coast Guard guys on the ferry I ride would have done if they had seen my copy of Christy Canyon's autobiography.

I feel much safer now, part 2.

The Justice Department is ordering public libraries to destroy certain books it has deemed not “appropriate for external use.”

The Department of Justice has called for these five public documents, two of which are texts of federal statutes, to be removed from depository libraries and destroyed, making their content available only to those with access to a law office or law library.

The topics addressed in the named documents include information on how citizens can retrieve items that may have been confiscated by the government during an investigation. The documents to be removed and destroyed include: Civil and Criminal Forfeiture Procedure; Select Criminal Forfeiture Forms; Select Federal Asset Forfeiture Statutes; Asset forfeiture and money laundering resource directory; and Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA).

I am starting to wonder if the Justice Department is deliberately trying to make this administration look bad. If so, they are doing a superb job of it.

Link, via Boing Boing.

Update: The Justice Department has rescinded the order.

Alabama Views the 20th Century, Runs in Terror

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld Alabama’s 1998 (yes, that is right, 1998, not 1898) law banning the sale of “any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs for any thing of pecuniary value.”

To quote Boing Boing paraphrasing Andrew Orlowski on the moronic INDUCE Act, one could set up a shop in Alabama selling semiautomatic rifles and dildos, and be arrested for selling the dildos.

It’s time for Blowfish to offer a discount to Alabama customers, clearly.

The arguments against gay marriage have no intellectual merit, part 1.

I should let this topic go, but I'm wired up. It’s probably the doughnuts.

So, let’s get this clear. It is acceptable for individuals to buy firearms because to prevent them from doing so is overweening state power. Even though firearms can unquestionably used to do bad things, having the state tell you that you can’t have them is worse. Even though it is far from uncommon that children die at home in accidents with firearms, the alternative is worse. OK, great, I’m with you so far.

But it’s OK for the state to tell gays they can’t marry, because a married gay person might at some point be not quite as good a parent as could possibly be hoped. And that’s an entirely appropriate use of state power.

Sorry, lost you there. Conservatives should not be in a big hurry to pat themselves on the back about their intellectual rigour.

(And, yes, I know that the Second Amendment deals with the first situation, while no specific Constitutional amendment deals with the second. That’s true, and completely irrelevant. Legalistic arguments are useful when answering the question “What is legal?“, but have no relevance to the question “What should the law be?” The fact that the legalistic argument against gay marriage is thrown up so early in the debate is one more sign of the intellectual bankruptcy of the arguments against it.)

How to Ruin a Perfectly Nice Trip

So, here I am in Portland, Oregon at a very nice conference. Portland is in Multnomah County, one of the few places in the country where, at least for a while, gays could legally marry.

And, of course, Oregon is also home to idiots (like everywhere else in the country) that seem to be utterly unable to cope with the idea of gays marrying, so they have qualified a petition for the November ballot to prevent that.

All of these stupid anti-same-sex-marriage laws are pointless and antiquated as sodomy laws. I cannot believe that in 2004 we’re continuing to argue over this. I would like you morons to cut it out; you’re embarrassing me in front of my European friends.

And, in addition, the chief private competitor of Oregon’s very reasonably-priced state worker’s compensation insurance company, SAIF, are pushing a petition to put it out of business. I guess that they decided the California model of worker’s compensation would be a good idea. That’s an interesting business strategy: I wonder if I could get a law passed to put my competitors out of business.

I was thinking that Oregon was looking like an attractive place to do businesses. I guess, after November, I’ll know for sure.

Blame Canada

Well, in this case, blame video games. It’s much easier than actually raising your kids.

Fighting the Last War

“Generals are always prepared to fight the last war” is a cliché, and as with most clichés, that is because it is true.

In reading this post on WorldChanging about a site that summarizes the evidence in favor of anthropogenic (i.e., human-caused) global warming, it struck me how the argument, at least in the US, has broken along traditional political lines. The left, by and large, accepts the existence of anthropogenic global warming and wants to make finding answers to it a priority; the right, by and large, argues against it, usually in the alternative (it isn’t happening; if it is happening, humans aren’t causing it; if humans are causing it there is nothing we can do; if there is something we can, it’s too expensive; and if there is something affordable that we can do, what’s wrong with the climate getting warmer, anyway?).

Why is that? Why the resistance to something that is as categorically true as the earth going around the sun?

And then it struck me: The right is not fighting the current war, they’re fighting the last one. From the right’s perspective, this whole thing is a continuation of the (largely-mythological) “technology vs. the Luddite left” war, where the only answer to global warming is to return to the Iron Age (setting aside for a moment that Iron Age-style living with the world’s current population might not be a really great idea, either).

Certainly elements of that exist on the left, but the strange, like the poor, will always be with us, bless ’em.

The reality is that this is a technological problem that will have technological fixes. Unless we are willing to consider things that border on the unthinkable (“what would it take to get the world’s population back to 2 billion?”), we will need to apply every ounce of brain matter to finding very clever fixes for this problem. It’s going to be complicated, and it may well be a bit inconvenient for the first world.

We’ll cope, we always do. This is not about smashing the automated looms; this is about finding a way to continue enjoying the current standard of living. Yes, we will have to find replacements for hydrocarbon power; we found replacements for horse power in cities, and I am not among the few who miss foot-deep horse shit on city streets.

And, a special note to my friends on the right: Some group of people, who may not even know who they are right now, is going to make shitloads of money off of this.

American and the Know-Nothings

One of the things that fascinates me about America is that it is the only modern industrial country that will elect leaders on the basis of how unintelligent they are. In Europe, if you are perceived as dumb, that’s it for your political career; voters there, not unreasonably, expect that the leaders of their countries be smart enough to run the damn thing. It would be as disasterous as admitting to being an atheist would be in the US.

Here, being smart is liability. American anti-intellectualism runs very deep. I expect that a candidate for Congress to say something like, “Well, I don’t know much about fancy finance. I’m just a plain ol’-fashioned boy. That’s why I think I’d be a good Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.“

Thus, we have the President of the United States making claims about another country that are, first, not true, and are, second, based on quotes that were lifted from an undergraduate’s paper, and, lastly, with all that, his staff didn’t even get the quotes and their context right.

And, here in Bush’s America, that’s no big deal.

I feel much safer now.

Remember, whatever you do, don’t run a popular fan site about a science fiction show. After all, what are you, some kind of terrorist?

Don’t Even Think About It

“We cannot have free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forego, or postpone a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us.”

— Abraham Lincoln

They’re Here

In chatting about the Bush administration’s horrible attitude towards civil liberties with more right-wing friends, a steady mantra has been: Don’t worry about the laws. Worry about the prosecutions.

OK, gotcha. The prosecutions are here now, and I’m very, very worried.

An artist whose work is dangerous only in that it is politically provocative is facing charges that could lock him up for 20 years in prison. That’s it. End of story. This is not far from a Soviet-era trial of a writer on charges of parasitism and hooliganism.

You know that assault on liberties that all of us nutso left-wingers complained about with the PATRIOT act? It’s here. It’s happening.

(And, in a Blowfish connection, one of the publishers we carry got a subpoena!)

Update: WorldChanging has a very good post on a way that you can help.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Facts

I'm going to include this attributed statement from Oliver Letwin, the UK Conservative Party’s Shadow Chancellor, because it illustrates wonderfully the uses to which facts can be put:

Mr Letwin said huge amounts of money were being used to fund a Civil Service the same size as the population of Sheffield.

Why, that’s terrible! That’s horrible! That’s . . . um, how many people live in Sheffield, anyway? (417,900 in 2003, according to some cheesy Google-based research I just did.)

Here, we have a superb example of the Context-Free Fact. Is that too many civil servants? Too few? How does that compare with other countries? Does that include doctors and nurses in the NHS, lawyers in Legal Aid? It’s clear that Mr Letwin doesn’t approve, but on what basis does he not approve? How many civil servants would be the right number?

Facts, even if 100% accurate, are useless without context.

Thus, when George Bush’s EPA touts its Green credentials by announcing that it will spend a huge, enormous, whopping $37.5 million on Energy Star, perhaps the most successful energy conservation program the Federal government has come up with, it pays to know that this is $12.5 million less than has been spent on it in previous years, and they are in fact cutting, not expanding, this program. Just for example.

The Real Conspiracy

In chatting with many friends left-of-center lately, a single theme has started to repeat itself, over and over again: There’s no point in voting. The Republicans, the story goes, have the election tied up. Even if Dubya appeared on Fox announcing his conversion to Islam with bin Laden next to him, Diebold has the election preprogrammed with compromised voting machines, and Bush would still walk home with 75% of the vote. Stay at home, and complain on your blog about the stolen election, appears to be the message.

I’m not quite so gone on conspiracy theories to think that this very rumor is a result of RNC plants, but the self-fulfiling nature of it is obvious. Let’s be clear: Diebold trickery or no, if everyone who thinks that Bush is a moron stays home, he will walk home with 75% of the vote. So, don’t do that, OK?

That’s It. This War on Terrorism Has Gotten Far Too Silly.

Via Boing Boing, this item from US News and World Report:

It was the lead item on the government's daily threat matrix one day last April. Don Emilio Fulci described by an FBI tipster as a reclusive but evil millionaire, had formed a terrorist group that was planning chemical attacks against London and Washington, D.C. That day even FBI director Robert Mueller was briefed on the Fulci matter. But as the day went on without incident, a White House staffer had a brainstorm: He Googled Fulci. His findings: Fulci is the crime boss in the popular video game Headhunter. "Stand down," came the order from embarrassed national security types.

Life imitates The Onion.

Command-Line Food

Way back when we had to bang rocks together to do computation, and I was first learning to do so, one of the programs that the nerds at the Santa Monica High School Computer Lab put together was the “Store Program.” The only place to get snacks that was in walking distance of Samohi way back then was a rather scary liquor store on Pico just, uh, I guess that’s north-east of Lincoln.

Amazingly enough, that liquor store is still there.

The Store Program was pretty cool, in its primitive little Interdata 7/16 BASIC kind of way. It would take everyone’s order (red licorice and Coke for me, thanks!), calculate how much everyone owed (including tax), figure out from how much each person was putting in how much of what kind of change to get (down to the dime, nickel and penny), and (most important!) pick someone at random to walk to the store.

It is good to know that we still have geeks out there who are continuing the fine tradition of the Store Program, and the Xerox PARC burrito utility.

Resign, Rumsfeld

I greatly admire The Economist, even when I strongly disagree with its political stance. Lately, I’ve disagreed more and more, as the position that the war in Iraq was the only viable alternative, and entirely and completely justified, has moved from seeming arguable, but at least principled, to seeming merely stubborn.

Now, the magazine has run a leader calling on Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to resign over the Iraq torture revelations. They’re right. He should.

Torture vs Abuse

On a different blog, I commented that this hair-splitting over whether what US soldiers are accused of doing is “abuse” or “torture” seemed like an attempt to preserve some kind of magical American exceptionalism. ”Well, we may have abused, but America doesn’t torture.”

“The pictures I've seen depict conduct, behaviour that is so brutal and so cruel and so inhumane that anyone engaged in it or involved in it would have to be brought to justice,” Mr Rumsfeld said. (BBC News)

I’d say that pretty much clears that matter up.

All countries, everywhere, are defined by their actions. Reading certain neo-con writing, I sometimes get flashes of the idea that America is a Knoxian “Elect” country, that because America is an inherently good country, anything we do (no matter how it seems) must be good, too. Of course, that’s backwards: If America is to be a good country, it must act that way. Often, we do. This time, we didn’t. The myth that our actions are self-justifying is incredibly dangerous.

Louisiana Solves All Problems, Moves On to Fashion

The Louisiana legislature, having apparently solved every single major issue confronting that fine state, has moved on to the pressing problem of saggy pants that expose underwear or asses.

“I don't relish the idea of seeing the beginning of people’s pubic hair,” Westwego City Councilman Glenn Green told the House Criminal Justice Committee on Thursday.

“I don't relish seeing the beginning of the crease of people’s buttocks. And I don’t enjoy watching young men letting their sexual organs show through their red or black silk underwear,” Green said.

“Red or black silk underwear”? It might be just me, but does it not seem that Councilman Green has thought about this to quite a high level of detail?

A Fine Mess

The Financial Times, for those who are not familiar with it, is the City of London’s equivalent of the Wall Street Journal. While the FT’s editorials are not nearly as Neaderthal as those of the Journal, it worships at the shrine of Saint Thatcher . . . in other words, it is just about as far as you can get from a left-wing rag and still be in Europe.

It recently published an editorial, signed by 52 British former embassadors and members of the foreign policy establishment, arguing that Britain’s blind adherence to the Bush administration’s policies in the Middle East have deeply damanged the UK’s interests abroad.

Reading the editorial on-line requires a subscription (which is worth it), but the below-mentioned A Fistful of Euros published a very pithy quote.

Now that the official line out of Washington DC appears to be, “Everything will be fine, it’s just a few extremists, Saddam was worse, la la la la I can’t hear you,” it’s refreshing to remember that people who actual apply reason to situations still exist in the world.

You Go, Kamala

Penni Gladstone,
San Francisco Chronicle

One of the better (and rarer) things that can happen in politics is to have the person you didn’t vote win, and then take positions that you approve of. I didn’t vote for Kamala Harris for San Francisco District Attorney, but her stance against seeking the death penalty in a cop-killing case is honorable.

When one is running for District Attorney in San Francisco, the death penalty is the big issue one must confront. San Francisco is overwhelming against the death penalty; California is largely in favor of it. DA is a traditional stepping stone to higher office. So, what’s the decision? Represent the people who voted for you (you know, that democracy thing we hear so much about), or avoid giving Orange County rightists something to beat you up on when you run for Attorney General?

While she was running, she said she wouldn’t seek the death penalty. She won. She’s still saying it. Good for her.

Diebold Votes, So You Don’t Have To

This item appeared on Boing Boing today, but I’m quoting it here even so. First, this is a blog, for crying out loud, and if the instant repetition of everything else that happens in the Blogosphere isn’t blogging, what is? Second, this is awfully darn important; we could very well be moving to a situation in which the free and fair elections on which this whole democracy experiment depends become a bad joke.

The subject is, of course, electronic voting. The mad rush to electronic voting has been full of potholes, introducing systems that are highly vulnerable to compromise, and, perhaps, even outright fraud.

Any electronic voting system, at an absolute minimum, must produce paper records of each and every vote, stored securely after review by the voter. Relying on the electronic records themselves for recounts is utter nonsense. Of course a recount based on the electronic records will match the the first count . . . that’s true by definition. No one is questioning whether not the voting machines can add properly; it’s whether or not they are recording the voter’s actual choices that is open to question.

To anyone with a background in technology, the excuses that are being given are clearly specious, amounting to not much more than, “Trust us, everything’s fine. We have unspecified proprietary solutions to these problems.” My bullshit meter immediately goes off when any company dismisses any problem as being solved in an unspecified way by unspecified proprietary technology. If there was ever an application that demanded utterly unproprietary, utterly transparent solutions, open for all to see and completely beyond reproach, it’s voting technology.

(And, as an aside, one of the reasons given against printers on voting machines is that printers break down all the time, and are utterly unreliable. Gosh, has Diebold told their ATM customers that?)

We’re living in a 50%/50% country these days. Elections like 2000 Florida are likely to become more common, not less. If there was ever a time that we needed absolute certainty in the integrity of the voting process, it was now. The fact that this debate, on the national level, is breaking along partisan lines is not reassuring. You would think that any national party, regardless of their political views, would be absolutely committed to making sure that elections are honest, wouldn’t you?

Otherwise, there will be serious reasons to doubt the legitimacy of any new government. Countries in which the government is not considered legitimate by a significant portion of the population tend to be unpleasant places to live.

[Update 24 April 2004: Diebold is in deep trouble over their actions in California. The company’s spin on this is a masterpiece. If you are ever arrested for holding up a liquor store, be sure to tell the judge that being charged for it “doesn’t solve the problem. It just sets a tone of confrontation at a time when we should be working together to address issues with liquor store security.“ Should work great.]

Protect Your Porn

I’m not a single-issue voter. But when a single issue comes down to something that is both a Constitutional right and my livelihood, it requires an awfullly compelling reason for me to vote against both . . . and I’m not seeing that reason this November.

Neither does porn director Chi Chi LaRue, and thus we have the wonderful web site Protect Your Porn. If your porn isn’t worth fighting for, what is?

Why Federal spending is difficult to restrain, in one pithy (and possibly apocryphal) talk show quote

Radio talk show host: “Do you think that the taxpayers should pay to rebuild the World Trade Center?”
Caller (shocked): “Of course not! The government should pay the entire cost!”

Am I felonious or not?

Via the rather righty Little Miss Attila, found this article (from another righty blog) questioning the wisdom about the War on Pornography.

I’m not going to hash over (in this post) the idea of whether or not a War on a Concept is a reasonable idea. I'm going to address one of the comments, which rhetorically asks:

So you think we shouldn’t enforce the law because we are fighting terrorism?

In the case of the War on Pornography, it’s not that simple.

In a reasonable world, any average citizen should be able to tell, in advance, if a particular action will break the law or not. For example, whether or not you agree with the War on Drugs, if you are bouncing ashore north of San Diego with a motorboat full of cocaine, it’s hard to argue that you didn't know that you were doing something the law frowns upon.

The problem with the current state of obscenity law (and, please remember, the term "pornography" has no legal definition whatsoever) is that you don’t know. You will never know. The only way to know is to be prosecuted, have your life ruined by the expense and effort of defending yourself, be found innocent . . . and then have to do it all over again with the next book or video you make.

Suppose the only way you could know if taking a prescription drug was legal was to be busted, have all your assets seized, be prosecuted, and then be found innocent. And further suppose that no precedent whatsoever would be established by this: You could still be prosecuted for taking a different medication, and your neighbor down the street could be prosecuted for the same drug that you were just acquitted for.

Welcome to the state of modern obscenity law. It’s not a comfortable place to live. Saying that the government should "just enforce the law" conceals a huge amount of politicized decision-making as to who gets prosecuted, and for what. It's been somewhat academic until recently, as the Clinton administration did not consider obscenity prosecutions a priority, and the Bush administration had, shall we say, other things to think about. But now the Feds have a case that they are sure they can win, and they are probably right.

As with most people in the sex business, I view the prosecution of Extreme Associates with mixed feelings. Rob Black’s (of Extreme) protestations of innocence are utterly disingenuous; this is a guy who has made a living by deliberately pushing the edge, with material that everyone with half a living brain cell knew was prosecution bait. That was his marketing niche: He made videos with shit (sometimes literally) in them that other producers wouldn't touch. If you dance on the edge of the cliff yelling, "Look how close I am!", when you trip and fall, it’s a bit rich to claim you were pushed. It’s doubly rich to take up a collection for your medical bills.

But my peers in the industry have rocks in their head if they think the Extreme Associates prosecution is the end. It's the beginning. The Ashcroft DoJ wants a case they can win, to prove to the public, the sex industry, the demoralized anti-smut zealots within the DoJ, and (most importantly) the Bush administration’s extreme right-wing base that obscenity cases are winnable. If that can be accomplished, hunting season will be open, and we’ll all be in front of the blind.

(Thanks to Jamais for the idea of a War on Concept, btw.)

That's a relief

It is reassuring to see that everything in Iraq is going according to plan.