There was somethin' funny in the water tonight. It's not like I haven't been around campus since graduation; I'm one of the weirdoes that likes their college so much they continue living near it long after graduating.
But tonight there was a bit of a twinge of something or other. My girlfriend's out of town, my roommate's out of town, finished up a couple projects at work, haven't seen a couple of my friends around here in a while...and wandering across campus this evening just felt kinda odd.
And then I get home, and of course the cat's not even excited to see me!
4/23/2010
4/14/2010
I don't get the Iraq shooting video
(P) I had been debating whether I wanted to see the video posted at Wikileaks of the shooting of some Iraqis a few years ago from Apache helicopters. There was so much hype around it, I really wasn't sure what might be on it.
But I went and watched it last night, and I don't get it. The soldiers in the video were quite professional. They maintained aerial surveillance of the ground, stayed in contact with each other, sought permission from their commanders before taking action, used short controlled bursts of rounds, and were otherwise quite calm and focused. I was particularly impressed by their restraint after one of them thought he saw an RPG. I'm sorry, but if I'm in a helicopter in a war zone, and my colleague is saying there's an RPG, I just might pull that trigger and ask permission to engage later. After wetting my pants, of course.
This. Is. War.
What the bleeping bleepity bleep bleep did you think was going on over there? We're handing out flowers? Baking cookies? Singing Kum ba yah?
If Iraqis (and Afghans and Iranians and Saudis and Pakistanis and everybody else) are our enemies, then we should celebrate the efficient, professional conduct captured in this engagement. If those people aren't our enemies, well, get the heck out of there. Until the President, Secretary of Defense, and Centcom commanders give the orders to leave, this is precisely what will continue in our name.
The story of this video is that there's no story. That's why the government fought Reuters' FOIA request. The Reuters employees, and the other Iraqis too, are dead because of the choice to occupy the country. These events are expected consequences of sending military troops to patrol foreign places.
But I went and watched it last night, and I don't get it. The soldiers in the video were quite professional. They maintained aerial surveillance of the ground, stayed in contact with each other, sought permission from their commanders before taking action, used short controlled bursts of rounds, and were otherwise quite calm and focused. I was particularly impressed by their restraint after one of them thought he saw an RPG. I'm sorry, but if I'm in a helicopter in a war zone, and my colleague is saying there's an RPG, I just might pull that trigger and ask permission to engage later. After wetting my pants, of course.
This. Is. War.
What the bleeping bleepity bleep bleep did you think was going on over there? We're handing out flowers? Baking cookies? Singing Kum ba yah?
If Iraqis (and Afghans and Iranians and Saudis and Pakistanis and everybody else) are our enemies, then we should celebrate the efficient, professional conduct captured in this engagement. If those people aren't our enemies, well, get the heck out of there. Until the President, Secretary of Defense, and Centcom commanders give the orders to leave, this is precisely what will continue in our name.
The story of this video is that there's no story. That's why the government fought Reuters' FOIA request. The Reuters employees, and the other Iraqis too, are dead because of the choice to occupy the country. These events are expected consequences of sending military troops to patrol foreign places.
4/12/2010
woah, the royals put up 10 runs
Spread the love around guys. We need some runs the rest of the week, too.
3/31/2010
3/30/2010
liberal mud wrestling cage match extroardinaire
I have become slightly fascinated by a particular bout of personality-run-amok circulating around the intertubes recently regarding Glenn Greenwald, Jane Hamsher, Rogers Cadenhead, et al. If you know what I'm talking about, no need to rehash anything; you've already spent too much time reading about this.
If you don't, just picture scantily clad women mud wrestling (apparently, a lot of people do, as a quick Google Search turns up 766,000 links) and then replace scantily clad women with liberal activist blogger nerds.
Much fun.
P.S. Holy cow. I clicked on the Google Search link, and it said 808,000 links. That's 42,000 new web pages in like a day. Either I accidentally started some massive new trend, or there's going to be 15 million pages on mud wrestling come my birthday next year. Or, perhaps, mathematics isn't quite so simple as extrapolating linear trends forever. But then what would Wall Street hotshots do to claim they should make gobs 'o money?
And dude, check it out. All you have to do is come up with long phrases not usually found together, and presto, Google gold. Search mud wrestling liberal activist blogger nerds and guess who's number 1?
Really, you would never guess.
I even out-Malkined Michelle, whose post wasn't even number 2.
Just don't make me update this again when someone else steals the top spot that clearly and rightfully belongs to moi.
If you don't, just picture scantily clad women mud wrestling (apparently, a lot of people do, as a quick Google Search turns up 766,000 links) and then replace scantily clad women with liberal activist blogger nerds.
Much fun.
P.S. Holy cow. I clicked on the Google Search link, and it said 808,000 links. That's 42,000 new web pages in like a day. Either I accidentally started some massive new trend, or there's going to be 15 million pages on mud wrestling come my birthday next year. Or, perhaps, mathematics isn't quite so simple as extrapolating linear trends forever. But then what would Wall Street hotshots do to claim they should make gobs 'o money?
And dude, check it out. All you have to do is come up with long phrases not usually found together, and presto, Google gold. Search mud wrestling liberal activist blogger nerds and guess who's number 1?
Really, you would never guess.
I even out-Malkined Michelle, whose post wasn't even number 2.
Just don't make me update this again when someone else steals the top spot that clearly and rightfully belongs to moi.
3/05/2010
ha, just kidding
(P) I clearly can't read an invitation. The Obama/McCaskill event is obviously next week...
3/04/2010
quick reminder - Obama's in town tonight
(P) I'm helping out with my Clayton kiddies tonight, but if you've got nothing else to do, Obama and McCaskill are scheduled to put on a fundraiser at the Renaissance Grand at 6:30. You can get SRO tickets for just $25. I assume many of the local politicians will be there.
Alderwoman Triplett's link-through page at Act Blue is here.
Proceeds go to the Show Me State Victory Fund, which I believe is basically McCaskill's 2012 re-election fund.
Alderwoman Triplett's link-through page at Act Blue is here.
Proceeds go to the Show Me State Victory Fund, which I believe is basically McCaskill's 2012 re-election fund.
2/26/2010
the SF Fed exists in another dimension
I have decided that aliens abducted the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and replaced it with a drab building that could be anything but an illegal secret conspiracy aimed at controlling the world.
I find this the only possible conclusion after being thoroughly disappointed. The location is perfect; you hop off the BART and you are in the heart of the financial district, literally at the gates of the SF Fed. You just don't know it. There's no gleaming white marble and stone structure. No statue ideal for the casual picture. I have generally thought San Francisco to be a far superior city to Atlanta. But I may have to reorient my whole worldview now. They've got the western kingdom of the rulers of the free world holed up in a bunker.
You almost feel sorry for the suckers.
I find this the only possible conclusion after being thoroughly disappointed. The location is perfect; you hop off the BART and you are in the heart of the financial district, literally at the gates of the SF Fed. You just don't know it. There's no gleaming white marble and stone structure. No statue ideal for the casual picture. I have generally thought San Francisco to be a far superior city to Atlanta. But I may have to reorient my whole worldview now. They've got the western kingdom of the rulers of the free world holed up in a bunker.
You almost feel sorry for the suckers.
2/25/2010
2/19/2010
blunt's website cracks me up
(P) I've been enjoying checking out Representative Blunt's website over the past year as he's the de facto GOP candidate for Bond's Senate seat. What cracks me up is how there will be one news headline that will just completely contradict the headline before it. Do the Congressman's advisors think we're morans? For example, if you're opposed to making the national debt larger, then fine, support policies that shrink the debt.
As a headline from 2/4 states: Blunt votes no on Greatest Debt Increase in American History. Never mind the reasoning behind that logic; let's take it at face value for a moment.
Contrast that with a headline from two days before and a headline from the day before: Blunt Slams President's Tax Hike on Charitable Donations and Blunt Blast's President's removal of C-17s from Budget. Again, set aside the reasoning for why it might be good or bad to reduce the tax breaks that wealthy Americans get for donating to charity and why it might be good or bad to reduce defense spending. Just take the statements at face value.
Within two days, Blunt's office issued statements saying that
1) We should increase the debt, and
2) We should decrease the debt
Or as another example, if you believe in free trade, great. I went to business school to major in management and international business. That's speakin' my language.
So on Blunt's issues page, he talks about
But on the very same page, he talks about
Again, set aside for a second whether you believe we should have free trade or a closed border; both have legitimate arguments backing them up. Rather, consider that the issues section of Blunt's website declares that
1) We should promote trade around the world, and
2) We should restrict trade at our borders
With leadership like that, he's sure to earn a promotion!
Seriously, Republicans support that guy? Democrats have their problems. I'm the first to call them idiots when they're, well, idiots. But Congressman Blunt takes it to a whole other level.
Whose side is he on? The Republicans blasting government spending? Or the commie-hippie-tree-hugging tax and spenders throwing away money on homeless people?
As a headline from 2/4 states: Blunt votes no on Greatest Debt Increase in American History. Never mind the reasoning behind that logic; let's take it at face value for a moment.
Contrast that with a headline from two days before and a headline from the day before: Blunt Slams President's Tax Hike on Charitable Donations and Blunt Blast's President's removal of C-17s from Budget. Again, set aside the reasoning for why it might be good or bad to reduce the tax breaks that wealthy Americans get for donating to charity and why it might be good or bad to reduce defense spending. Just take the statements at face value.
Within two days, Blunt's office issued statements saying that
1) We should increase the debt, and
2) We should decrease the debt
Or as another example, if you believe in free trade, great. I went to business school to major in management and international business. That's speakin' my language.
So on Blunt's issues page, he talks about
Promoting the free flow of goods, knowledge and innovation around the world
But on the very same page, he talks about
Enforcing our border, standing up for the rule of law
Again, set aside for a second whether you believe we should have free trade or a closed border; both have legitimate arguments backing them up. Rather, consider that the issues section of Blunt's website declares that
1) We should promote trade around the world, and
2) We should restrict trade at our borders
With leadership like that, he's sure to earn a promotion!
Seriously, Republicans support that guy? Democrats have their problems. I'm the first to call them idiots when they're, well, idiots. But Congressman Blunt takes it to a whole other level.
Whose side is he on? The Republicans blasting government spending? Or the commie-hippie-tree-hugging tax and spenders throwing away money on homeless people?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)