So maybe this is a little past due. But I wanted to throw something out there: the long MLK day weekend in Portland was a bitchin' time. (I am sorry that Z injured himself of course, but other than that...) I'm rather glad that .5 inches of snow kicked the Visco's and my ass into not leaving.
I want to call for repetition. I think that perhaps once every two months would be gooder than not.
- Jen was a Major rockstar all weekend. 4 Stars.
- Drunk trivial is actually as fun as I remember it being in college.
- Drinking all day Sunday is a sign that God may in fact exist. (Not working on Monday is proof.)
- Aahnna puking: 4 stars. Not feeding the dog? 1 Star penalty.
As Visco pointed out recently, sometimes sequels are as good as the original.
25 January 2007
18 January 2007
Good Morning, Guantanamo
The pentagon released rules for detainee trials this week. They include, I shit you not, the ability to use hearsay as valid evidence against the defendant. Hearsay is evidence based on the reports of others (not direct knowledge) and is therefore not generally admissible in court, or important for that matter. It's sorta like if Visco told me some guy from RiRa said he saw Joe kissing some dude in the kitchen I wouldn't just take it as fact that Joe is gay. But the tribunals in Guantanamo would.
12 January 2007
NotPocalypse
[Today's Sign That the Apocalypse Is Not As Near As I Think]
WallyWorld has accepted bids on what could become the largest solar power project in history. If they proceed it will be 50x larger than the (currently biggest) Google corporate headquarters solar array.
At the end of February Walmart will announce a decision, so they still have ample time to reverse course. But there is some small measure of hope.
At the end of February Walmart will announce a decision, so they still have ample time to reverse course. But there is some small measure of hope.
10 January 2007
Ars Discordia
Well, I just listened to the best thing ever: hearing the Shrub (try) to speak. It really amuses me. The speaking part anyway. (What he says? That, my friends, is a horse of a different fucking color.)
So there is this: Shrub speaking reminds me of, well, me speaking. Only the me I'm referring to is 18 and hungover, is fumbling thru COM 103 in his first semester at UMaine, and is not the leader of the free world.
---
The title of this post is Ars Discordia. It's Latin, but i don't know if it means anything. I took Latin in High School, and you can imagine that my grammar (never good) has not exactly improved since that time. The point is that I am considering starting another blog. One that I will probably not write in. But I might. And if i did it would be slightly more serious political and social commentary. Less swearing and more detail-oriented.
It is unclear to me at this late hour whether or not this is a good idea. Is it respect for the few people who read my blog that I might split off my mundane musing from my leftist babble? Or is it vanity, thinking that some people would actually read two different blogs posted by me?
These things I don't know, so in honor of "sitting on the fence" I will write a new post. I give you, my loyal but tiny audience the opportunity to either read it below, or on Ars Discordia (where there is also a definition.)
So there is this: Shrub speaking reminds me of, well, me speaking. Only the me I'm referring to is 18 and hungover, is fumbling thru COM 103 in his first semester at UMaine, and is not the leader of the free world.
---
The title of this post is Ars Discordia. It's Latin, but i don't know if it means anything. I took Latin in High School, and you can imagine that my grammar (never good) has not exactly improved since that time. The point is that I am considering starting another blog. One that I will probably not write in. But I might. And if i did it would be slightly more serious political and social commentary. Less swearing and more detail-oriented.
It is unclear to me at this late hour whether or not this is a good idea. Is it respect for the few people who read my blog that I might split off my mundane musing from my leftist babble? Or is it vanity, thinking that some people would actually read two different blogs posted by me?
These things I don't know, so in honor of "sitting on the fence" I will write a new post. I give you, my loyal but tiny audience the opportunity to either read it below, or on Ars Discordia (where there is also a definition.)
Strategy v Tactics -or- How Bush is Stupid
Strategy: the planning and conduct of battles to gain the end of war
Tactics: a plan for engaging and defeating an enemy in battle
---
George Bush has finally made his appearance. He waited. He hid. By keeping the doors closed and the phone lines secure since the November elections, Bush has effectively held the citizenry of this country in limbo. Equally important, but almost always forgotten, he has kept the citizenry of Iraq hostage to the terror and strife that descended there in the aftermath of our "mission accomplished" victory.
For two months the President and his staff have been talking about the unveiling of a new "strategy" in Iraq. Their words.
We can look at the definitions above and see that strategy is big picture. Tactics are small picture. You win a battle with tactics. You win the war with strategy. Are battles important? Absolutely. But not if they don't help towards your objective. In terms of football: first downs are only useful if you don't turn the ball over ever possession.
So, what did Bush say? Well, he said basically only two things. (One might argue a third.) First, he said that he is ultimately responsible for the errors of the war thus-far. Interesting, but ultimately unimportant. We all knew this anyway; he's just attempting to gain some measure of credibility by his apparent humility. Second, he said he's sending in 21,000 more troops. And that's it.
What he didn't say is more telling. He did not say that we are going to change the mission of the troops that are in Iraq. He did not say that we are going to engage in aggressive diplomacy with the states of the region to enlist their help in stabilizing Iraq. He did not say that we are going to undertake a massive effort the likes of which haven't been seen since the end of WW II to rebuild the shattered country of Iraq. He did not say that the US will put massive pressure on the peace process in Israeli occupied territories to help treat the cause of the terrorism disease.
From what he didn't say we can deduce that he did not in fact change the strategy for the war. He changed the tactics. More troops. "Stay the Course II."
Sequels are always worse than the original.
Tactics: a plan for engaging and defeating an enemy in battle
---
George Bush has finally made his appearance. He waited. He hid. By keeping the doors closed and the phone lines secure since the November elections, Bush has effectively held the citizenry of this country in limbo. Equally important, but almost always forgotten, he has kept the citizenry of Iraq hostage to the terror and strife that descended there in the aftermath of our "mission accomplished" victory.
For two months the President and his staff have been talking about the unveiling of a new "strategy" in Iraq. Their words.
We can look at the definitions above and see that strategy is big picture. Tactics are small picture. You win a battle with tactics. You win the war with strategy. Are battles important? Absolutely. But not if they don't help towards your objective. In terms of football: first downs are only useful if you don't turn the ball over ever possession.
So, what did Bush say? Well, he said basically only two things. (One might argue a third.) First, he said that he is ultimately responsible for the errors of the war thus-far. Interesting, but ultimately unimportant. We all knew this anyway; he's just attempting to gain some measure of credibility by his apparent humility. Second, he said he's sending in 21,000 more troops. And that's it.
What he didn't say is more telling. He did not say that we are going to change the mission of the troops that are in Iraq. He did not say that we are going to engage in aggressive diplomacy with the states of the region to enlist their help in stabilizing Iraq. He did not say that we are going to undertake a massive effort the likes of which haven't been seen since the end of WW II to rebuild the shattered country of Iraq. He did not say that the US will put massive pressure on the peace process in Israeli occupied territories to help treat the cause of the terrorism disease.
From what he didn't say we can deduce that he did not in fact change the strategy for the war. He changed the tactics. More troops. "Stay the Course II."
Sequels are always worse than the original.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)