Wednesday, January 07, 2004
An article giving some idea as to where we are (or aren't) with the WMD search.
I'm not ready to declare total victory on the WMD front, and I doubt I ever will. It seems kinda stupid to be saying this, seeing as how even I expected them to find shit over in Iraq once we invaded. I did not expect them to prove me wrong on the one thing we agreed on. The problem is, even if we find nothing, the question will remain as to whether or not we just didn't look hard enough. Of course, we are looking pretty hard. If any of it pays off, and we do find (or plant) something substantial, my guess is that it will show up sometime this year, and probably before November.
One thing that does seem pretty evident is that, yes, Iraq did have some plans or at least desires to develop banned weapons. This, however, IS NOT WHAT WE WERE TOLD about Iraq's supposed weapons. We were told that they had shit on hand, and lots of it. Shit that he planned to use on us.
Weapons programs do not constitute an immediate threat. I'm no expert on genetics, biology, or weapons hardware, but I do have a little bit of experience in R&D. Enough experience to know that when you want to develop something, it takes fucking time. There's no magical factory that you can send an idea to which will produce a finished product that same day. There's a lot of planning, research, design, simulation, and test before you have some sort of viable product. Iraq sounds like it was nowhere near that "finished product" stage.
The reason why I did not support the war despite (probably mistakenly) believing that Iraq had WMD was because I was nowhere near convinced that Saddam was going to use them on us. We kept such a tight reign on Iraq, carving the country up with no-fly zones and dropping bombs if Saddam so much as woke up all wet and sticky after dreams of illicit weapons. He didn't have the capability to strike the American homeland, and even if he were brazen enough to strike an ally like Israel or some other American interest, that would have been fucking suicide. We would have immediately figured out where the attack came from and then been in there wit' da quickness to fuck him up. If nothing else, I figured Saddam would have used them when we were on Baghdad's doorstep, but even that didn't go down.
The only other possibility would be that he would transfer his weapons to someone else, like terrorists, who would then use them. Well, this didn't really fly either, because I doubt it would be all that easy to move shit like that without someone noticing. Of course, now that it's looking more and more like there was nothing to move, it's all a moot point.
The main point here is that even if Iraq had weapons before the war or if they had them in the future, that doesn't mean they were planning on using them. This makes the Bush team's justification for war, that of an imminent threat, a complete and total lie.
I know what you're saying. "Why would they have all these horrible weapons if they weren't planning on using them?" Well, there are lots of other countries that have some pretty evil shit, the United States included. Just because we have it doesn't necessarily mean we're going to use it. "But this is Saddam we're talking about it. He's crazy."
Yeah, let's talk about Saddam a little more. Sure, Saddam was a brutal dictator who was hungry for power. In the end, though, he was what so many other world leaders are: a big fat pussy. He didn't go out with guns ablaze, he surrendered to U.S. forces without firing a shot just so he could have his hair checked for ticks and lice like a first grade child.
If that there was our "imminent threat," then I am not impressed.
I'm not ready to declare total victory on the WMD front, and I doubt I ever will. It seems kinda stupid to be saying this, seeing as how even I expected them to find shit over in Iraq once we invaded. I did not expect them to prove me wrong on the one thing we agreed on. The problem is, even if we find nothing, the question will remain as to whether or not we just didn't look hard enough. Of course, we are looking pretty hard. If any of it pays off, and we do find (or plant) something substantial, my guess is that it will show up sometime this year, and probably before November.
One thing that does seem pretty evident is that, yes, Iraq did have some plans or at least desires to develop banned weapons. This, however, IS NOT WHAT WE WERE TOLD about Iraq's supposed weapons. We were told that they had shit on hand, and lots of it. Shit that he planned to use on us.
Weapons programs do not constitute an immediate threat. I'm no expert on genetics, biology, or weapons hardware, but I do have a little bit of experience in R&D. Enough experience to know that when you want to develop something, it takes fucking time. There's no magical factory that you can send an idea to which will produce a finished product that same day. There's a lot of planning, research, design, simulation, and test before you have some sort of viable product. Iraq sounds like it was nowhere near that "finished product" stage.
The reason why I did not support the war despite (probably mistakenly) believing that Iraq had WMD was because I was nowhere near convinced that Saddam was going to use them on us. We kept such a tight reign on Iraq, carving the country up with no-fly zones and dropping bombs if Saddam so much as woke up all wet and sticky after dreams of illicit weapons. He didn't have the capability to strike the American homeland, and even if he were brazen enough to strike an ally like Israel or some other American interest, that would have been fucking suicide. We would have immediately figured out where the attack came from and then been in there wit' da quickness to fuck him up. If nothing else, I figured Saddam would have used them when we were on Baghdad's doorstep, but even that didn't go down.
The only other possibility would be that he would transfer his weapons to someone else, like terrorists, who would then use them. Well, this didn't really fly either, because I doubt it would be all that easy to move shit like that without someone noticing. Of course, now that it's looking more and more like there was nothing to move, it's all a moot point.
The main point here is that even if Iraq had weapons before the war or if they had them in the future, that doesn't mean they were planning on using them. This makes the Bush team's justification for war, that of an imminent threat, a complete and total lie.
I know what you're saying. "Why would they have all these horrible weapons if they weren't planning on using them?" Well, there are lots of other countries that have some pretty evil shit, the United States included. Just because we have it doesn't necessarily mean we're going to use it. "But this is Saddam we're talking about it. He's crazy."
Yeah, let's talk about Saddam a little more. Sure, Saddam was a brutal dictator who was hungry for power. In the end, though, he was what so many other world leaders are: a big fat pussy. He didn't go out with guns ablaze, he surrendered to U.S. forces without firing a shot just so he could have his hair checked for ticks and lice like a first grade child.
If that there was our "imminent threat," then I am not impressed.
So it looks like justice has decided to prevail for a change, as Galvin's site ended up winning both awards it was up for in the Asia 'Blog Awards. Even though I don't think he wins anything other than website hits and worthless praise from Fe, congrats to him nonetheless.
No way, those kids wanted it.
I sincerely hope that the gold and diamonds were for the older kids. Otherwise, he was totally giving those younger ones completely unrealistic expectations for later in life. No, who am I kidding, adults have been trading sex for jewelry for centuries. Might as well let them get used to that arrangement.
Now on a more serious side...
"York's attorney, Adrian Patrick, said the case was about government oppression." Yeah, government oppression of a kiddie raper. You know, one of the things we actually like seeing the government oppress.
"This is a sexy case. It's about sex and money." Yeah, it's about sex with children, and that's bad.
I sincerely hope that the gold and diamonds were for the older kids. Otherwise, he was totally giving those younger ones completely unrealistic expectations for later in life. No, who am I kidding, adults have been trading sex for jewelry for centuries. Might as well let them get used to that arrangement.
Now on a more serious side...
"York's attorney, Adrian Patrick, said the case was about government oppression." Yeah, government oppression of a kiddie raper. You know, one of the things we actually like seeing the government oppress.
"This is a sexy case. It's about sex and money." Yeah, it's about sex with children, and that's bad.
Tuesday, January 06, 2004
This here is a God I could worship. Okay, not so much worship as maybe just accept, but you get my point.
Here's another irritating phrase we like to use: "dotted the Is and crossed the Ts." We bust this one out to give a sense of completion and thoroughness. Are there instances where people write shit up but leave dotting the Is and crossing the Ts until the very end and, since they're just too fucking lazy, they don't bother doing it? And what about lowercase js and fs? Does nobody dot or cross those?
Despite the rules, how long before someone claims that choosing a Jew's design is a blatant crack-back on Muslims?
"The water would cascade on attack victims' names engraved on stone walls surrounding the pools in a random manner to convey the 'haphazard brutality of the deaths.'" Does anyone else get the sense that maybe this guy thought a little too much about the monument's design?
And hey, how about that "Garden of Light" idea? Open for less than two hours a day. Nice thought, but that wouldn't have been a huge pain in the ass or anything.
"The water would cascade on attack victims' names engraved on stone walls surrounding the pools in a random manner to convey the 'haphazard brutality of the deaths.'" Does anyone else get the sense that maybe this guy thought a little too much about the monument's design?
And hey, how about that "Garden of Light" idea? Open for less than two hours a day. Nice thought, but that wouldn't have been a huge pain in the ass or anything.
While we're on the subject of Japanese cars, here's a little anecdote from the "(Near) Adventures in Racism" File.
I was perusing some of those fucking online personals one day, and came across one that fucking pissed me off. This stupid bitch said something along the lines of the following in the likes/dislikes section of her profile:
"I don't like Jap cars, and you boys shouldn't either."
I was so infuriated by this that I was tempted to sign up for the stupid service just so I could e-mail her and say "You do realize that using the racial slur "Jap" hasn't been acceptable in this country for, oh, 40 or 50-some odd years, don't you?"
Of course, this would have cost me like $25, and just wasn't worth it. I'm pretty sure she was from Texas, and the picture in her profile had her wearing cowboy boots and possibly a hat, so I'm sorry, but her little "slip" really came as no surprise. No, not everyone from the South is a racist, and racism isn't unique to the South, but let's face it - there's kind of a history there. That, and, well, incest. Oh, relax. I kid the South.
Either way, just more of that "rah rah, America's better just because I live here" bullshit we see so much of.
I was perusing some of those fucking online personals one day, and came across one that fucking pissed me off. This stupid bitch said something along the lines of the following in the likes/dislikes section of her profile:
"I don't like Jap cars, and you boys shouldn't either."
I was so infuriated by this that I was tempted to sign up for the stupid service just so I could e-mail her and say "You do realize that using the racial slur "Jap" hasn't been acceptable in this country for, oh, 40 or 50-some odd years, don't you?"
Of course, this would have cost me like $25, and just wasn't worth it. I'm pretty sure she was from Texas, and the picture in her profile had her wearing cowboy boots and possibly a hat, so I'm sorry, but her little "slip" really came as no surprise. No, not everyone from the South is a racist, and racism isn't unique to the South, but let's face it - there's kind of a history there. That, and, well, incest. Oh, relax. I kid the South.
Either way, just more of that "rah rah, America's better just because I live here" bullshit we see so much of.
Gee, I can't imagine why that would be.
"Frankly, it's time (for Japan) to get off the 'We're going to export everything we make to somebody else'." Lotsa luck on that, Rick. Yes, Japan has historically done lots of things to give themselves what many claim is an unfair advantage. But you know what? There are other reasons why a lot of Japanese as well as other foreign cars sell so well - they're not pieces of shit. I'd have a lot more sympathy for American manufacturers when they cry foul if they could actually put out decent products.
"Frankly, it's time (for Japan) to get off the 'We're going to export everything we make to somebody else'." Lotsa luck on that, Rick. Yes, Japan has historically done lots of things to give themselves what many claim is an unfair advantage. But you know what? There are other reasons why a lot of Japanese as well as other foreign cars sell so well - they're not pieces of shit. I'd have a lot more sympathy for American manufacturers when they cry foul if they could actually put out decent products.
Meanwhile, I was alone in my apartment, listening to the British House of Commons debate on the upcoming Iraq war. And probably masturbating. But not during the debate. Well, maybe a little.
It looks like the Consumer Electronics Show is next week. We really need to go to this sometime, since, as we all know, there are two floors. One floor is electronics, games, stuff like that. That first floor - not so many people. The second floor - all porn. And it is PACKED.
I totally need some glossy 8x10 close ups of a porn star's asshole. 'Cause I know her; she's a perfectionist.
I totally need some glossy 8x10 close ups of a porn star's asshole. 'Cause I know her; she's a perfectionist.
Some things to keep in mind the next time you hear Bush kissing Egypt's ass or implying that democracy in the Middle East will be easy. Also, a reminder that regardless of what our intentions and motives may be, how others around the world perceive those intentions and motives are equally if not more important.
Google search:
Battle Royale Schoolgirl Pics
... And will those schoolgirl outfits be with or without blood stains?
Battle Royale Schoolgirl Pics
... And will those schoolgirl outfits be with or without blood stains?
Since the color-coded alert-level system is no longer doing anything to scare the shit out of people, fighter escorts are now en vogue to keep us nervous and to remind us that big, bad Tom Ridge is doing a really good job of protecting us. Bonus points that the "trouble" once again emanated from France. Conveniently.
You're "surprised that no California brewer thought of it first"? Well, maybe no one else came up with this because it's not that good or funny of an idea.
Yet again we see the fallacy that it will be easy to just stop people from accessing child pornography. I'm not saying we should ignore child porn - far from it. I'm just saying that we are not doing the right things to fight this war effectively and constitutionally.
This is not the first time we've seen sweeping efforts to stop child pornography and "protect" children online, and it won't be the last. The efforts are always too restrictive (to the point where they are unconstitutional) and ineffective. I think this speaks to two things (amongst others).
First, there is this country's continual, irritating habit of fighting the wrong fight. I think it was put best in that article that maybe a better idea is to go after the child pornographers themselves. You know, get to the real root of the problem. But you see, we're lazy, and simpleminded, and we think that doing something like just imposing a blanket restriction on web sites is going to make it all go away. Nuh-uh. It's just like with video games: we don't look at what is fucked up mentally with kids that turn violent or question what the fuck is up with their parents. Instead, we sue the makers of Grand Theft Auto and boycott Brian (Marilyn Manson).
The other thing that this speaks to is a disgusting exploitation of a real issue for political means. I don't think that these laws are motivated only by a desire to protect children. The broad nature of these laws shows that they are trying to not just hit child porn, but lots of other things that they find offensive but couldn't limit access to any other way. Another example of this was when the RIAA came out and said that peer-to-peer networks were being used to distribute kiddie porn. What they were saying wasn't a lie, but their motivations were completely disingenuous. If P2P networks weren't being heavily used for swapping music, they wouldn't give a shit how much child porn was on there.
So, yeah. We're simple, we're stupid, and we're greedy. What else is new?
This is not the first time we've seen sweeping efforts to stop child pornography and "protect" children online, and it won't be the last. The efforts are always too restrictive (to the point where they are unconstitutional) and ineffective. I think this speaks to two things (amongst others).
First, there is this country's continual, irritating habit of fighting the wrong fight. I think it was put best in that article that maybe a better idea is to go after the child pornographers themselves. You know, get to the real root of the problem. But you see, we're lazy, and simpleminded, and we think that doing something like just imposing a blanket restriction on web sites is going to make it all go away. Nuh-uh. It's just like with video games: we don't look at what is fucked up mentally with kids that turn violent or question what the fuck is up with their parents. Instead, we sue the makers of Grand Theft Auto and boycott Brian (Marilyn Manson).
The other thing that this speaks to is a disgusting exploitation of a real issue for political means. I don't think that these laws are motivated only by a desire to protect children. The broad nature of these laws shows that they are trying to not just hit child porn, but lots of other things that they find offensive but couldn't limit access to any other way. Another example of this was when the RIAA came out and said that peer-to-peer networks were being used to distribute kiddie porn. What they were saying wasn't a lie, but their motivations were completely disingenuous. If P2P networks weren't being heavily used for swapping music, they wouldn't give a shit how much child porn was on there.
So, yeah. We're simple, we're stupid, and we're greedy. What else is new?
More money news.
I have never fully understood money, exchange rates, and all that shit. You know, I'm stupid, but I'm not fucking stupid. As yet, the whole subject area has never been more than muddily clear. My personal theory has always been that business and econ people got tired of watching the "smart" people, like doctors and engineers, so they came up with a system that was so fucking inane, complex, and illogical that the "smart" people couldn't figure it out, thus making themselves look smarter than they really are.
I have never fully understood money, exchange rates, and all that shit. You know, I'm stupid, but I'm not fucking stupid. As yet, the whole subject area has never been more than muddily clear. My personal theory has always been that business and econ people got tired of watching the "smart" people, like doctors and engineers, so they came up with a system that was so fucking inane, complex, and illogical that the "smart" people couldn't figure it out, thus making themselves look smarter than they really are.
So I'm listening to an ad for EHarmony.com this morning. They're talking about their bullshit system where they have a list of 29 compatibility points or some such bullshit that they use for pairing people off. Which means you answer some questions, they put it through a computer, and it finds you a match. I'm thinking to myself, I don't want the fucking BCS finding me a girlfriend.
The again I'm like, wait a minute, maybe I do want the BCS finding me a girlfriend, because it would probably find me two.
Who am I kidding. You could either give my info to a fucking Beowulf cluster, and after a few years of chugging away it'll just tell you "I've got nothing." Either that, or hand it to a 25 MHz shitbox and it will instantly tell you "What the fuck are you thinking?"
The again I'm like, wait a minute, maybe I do want the BCS finding me a girlfriend, because it would probably find me two.
Who am I kidding. You could either give my info to a fucking Beowulf cluster, and after a few years of chugging away it'll just tell you "I've got nothing." Either that, or hand it to a 25 MHz shitbox and it will instantly tell you "What the fuck are you thinking?"
I'm going to renew my claim that there is something seriously fucked up with the Catholic Church. Not only are they being forced to take an ACTIVE role in "protecting" children, but there are signs that not much effort has been made in this regard.
Why should we expect anything to change, anyway? These are SEX OFFENDERS. Sex criminals have an astoundingly high recidivism rate, and as such, there's no way things are going to seriously change unless if we just get those fucking criminals out of there. The fact that there are known abusive priests still running around shows how not serious they are about this issue.
People think that the Church should be "doing a better job of contacting and meeting with victims"? Considering how things have gone, I would recommend against that.
I'm also going to renew my claim that we should just execute sex criminals. Like I said, there's no way you're going to cure them. I mean, think about some of your sexual kinks. Ever tried to shake one off? It's damn near, if not completely, impossible. I don't know why, but once some sort of sexual proclivity is with you, it's just with you.
Of course, I'm not lumping us regular perverts in with the pedophiles. Pedos and other sex criminals take their proclivities to a whole new level where they harm others. And if they do it once, they're going to do it again unless if we step in and do something. And do something serious. Yeah, we're not going to give them the chair like I'm calling for, but we need to lock them up for life. One strike and you're OUT.
Why should we expect anything to change, anyway? These are SEX OFFENDERS. Sex criminals have an astoundingly high recidivism rate, and as such, there's no way things are going to seriously change unless if we just get those fucking criminals out of there. The fact that there are known abusive priests still running around shows how not serious they are about this issue.
People think that the Church should be "doing a better job of contacting and meeting with victims"? Considering how things have gone, I would recommend against that.
I'm also going to renew my claim that we should just execute sex criminals. Like I said, there's no way you're going to cure them. I mean, think about some of your sexual kinks. Ever tried to shake one off? It's damn near, if not completely, impossible. I don't know why, but once some sort of sexual proclivity is with you, it's just with you.
Of course, I'm not lumping us regular perverts in with the pedophiles. Pedos and other sex criminals take their proclivities to a whole new level where they harm others. And if they do it once, they're going to do it again unless if we step in and do something. And do something serious. Yeah, we're not going to give them the chair like I'm calling for, but we need to lock them up for life. One strike and you're OUT.
She WASN'T.
I normally run from celebrity stories like I run from, well, regular people, but this one is a special case. Comedians almost don't have to write any jokes - they're just writing themselves.
Oddly enough, the biggest joke in this whole debacle just became CNN. "The Most Trusted Name in News" is using AOL chat boards as a source of opinion and commentary? Yeah, this whole story doesn't even reach the bar of "low-class," and as such this is about the only place where AOL board dorks have any room to be talking. But still.
I normally run from celebrity stories like I run from, well, regular people, but this one is a special case. Comedians almost don't have to write any jokes - they're just writing themselves.
Oddly enough, the biggest joke in this whole debacle just became CNN. "The Most Trusted Name in News" is using AOL chat boards as a source of opinion and commentary? Yeah, this whole story doesn't even reach the bar of "low-class," and as such this is about the only place where AOL board dorks have any room to be talking. But still.
Monday, January 05, 2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
