The Daily Brief

Yesterday, in my daily email of The New Republic’s headlines, this John B. Judis article caught my eye. But, like most TNR stuff, it was “subscriber only.” Later in the day, I happened upon this free link to the same article.

Today, I notice Divine Rights: The Civil War was bloody and destructive. But was it a tragedy? by Steven Hahn – also “subscriber only.” But putting the author and title into Google yields this free link. for the same article.

In both cases, the free articles are on TNR’s website – not bootlegs, and they’re available the very same day they’re released to paid subscribers. So, TNR is obviously relying upon only those stupid enough to pay for a subscription they don’t need, or impressed enough with their overall content to pay gratuitously, for their non-advertising income. I am neither of those. But, so long as they allow me to read those few items which interest me for free, I will continue to do so.

By the way: there’s a way to jigger the URL for WSJ articles, as though a subscriber emailed you a referral, that allow free access as well. If anyone knows it, please pass it on. 😉

Update: Yesterday’s article was a one pager, today’s four. And clicking on page two takes you to the “available to subscribers only” screen. However, by emailing the article to myself, I got this link, which allows access to the subsequent pages.

Update 2: Good for those extra pages, as the first page and a half kind of drag. Anyway, Hahn mentiones the New York Historical Society’s Slavery in New York exhibition. I would take it in, if I could. But for all those others who can’t, I highly recommend their website.

I tried to record a cable TV program on my newly purchased DVD burner ($69.95, Wal-Mart, Black Friday, whatahoot competitive shopping). Loyal readers may recall that I have been assembling the killer home theater system (for that one movie a year that seems to require more than my 14 inch kitchen TV). Well, it didn’t work. I don’t know why, other than something is not connected properly. I am not stupid when it comes to matters technical – after all, I WAS a SAC Master Technician and have survived since then mostly as an engineer. I had the very first ever personal computer in our entire corporation (1983, IBM 5150 – 2 floppies, no hard drive). I introduced electronic machine controls to my company (TI 510 controller). And the legal part of my career, contrary to popular belief, did not make me more stupid, and finally I quit smoking pot years ago. I even have three patents, and have prosecuted over one hundred others.

No, the problem is that the documentation that comes with home electronics sucks. I have to believe that it works for the majority of its audience, after all, the use of home theater technology is unprecedented. I have tried to work with it – even to the extent of drawing schematics of my whole systems. I keep running into blocks in the diagram that can only be labeled as “A Miracle Occurs Here”. Even when everything works as advertised, it takes several remote controls, all used in concert, to achieve the desired result. Real Wife questions the value of this investment because the operation of which is beyond her ken. I cannot fault her because I need to get all of the manuals out to perform the simplest of tasks. Red Haired Girl is helpful – being twelve she is of the generation that doesn’t question how things work, but rather how to get the desired result.

So what are we to do? Comments are eagerly solicited.

I have made progress on recording music on-line. Beware though, it can be like drinking from a fire hose. I spent this weekend sorting through over 5GB of music (roughly 1200 songs) that I had 2 computers ripping simultaneously from Internet radio stations. It’s all legal, but the keep/record ratio is pretty low. Plus, the song beginnings and endings are kind of approximate in relation to the overall audio stream. In a few cases (check out the band My Morning Jacket and the song Beeswing from Richard Thompson), I paid for pure downloads from Walmart. Problem there is that they are infested with Digital Rights Management (DRM). Good luck trying to move it to another machine, even when legally entitled to do so. I had hoped to have all of this transferred to my new Philips 2GB mp3 player (another Black Friday victory – one almost requiring a blood commitment) for the trip to Germany this week, but their software for loading music to the player is also intelligible. Just as well, riding in an airplane or walking around in a foreign country with headphones is contrary to situational awareness, a mode to which I firmly ascribe.

Well, in 36 hours I will be en route to Munich, from which I will blog, with pictures, as well as keep in touch with the home front via cell phone. I suppose that one should not complain when their mouth is full.

I have no comments (beyond the obvious imperative of free speech and the understanding that it often leads to anger and wounded egos) on whether or not the Cartoons should have been published in Denmark, the U.S., or anywhere else. In a way, I am glad that they were, if for no other reason than to bring clarity to the true intent of the most powerful factions of Islam. Let’s get it out in the light, let’s openly discuss the reality that, to those who are inciting riots, and to those so easily incited, there are only three options for those of us who live in the Dar al-Harb or House of War (i.e., non-Muslims). Be killed, convert to Islam, or surrender to an existence of Dhimmitude. Dhimmi is the Arabic word for “protected”, but in practice it means being allowed to live as a second class citizen of very limited rights who must pay a poll tax to the Muslim rulers.

This is the strict interpretation by all but perhaps the moderates (perhaps in the majority, but most certainly silent) of the Islamic faith. Within the context of the nonstop spewing of insults and sacrilege to the Jewish and Christian religions by many mid-east countries, their recent demands and rhetoric are nothing short of a command that the rest of the world accept the status of inferiority and second class existence. Dr. Andrew Bostom in his book “The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims” and in his interview with FrontPage Magazine recounts a 13th century discussion for the collection of the tax: “…The infidel who wishes to pay his poll tax must be treated with disdain by the collector: the collector remains seated and the infidel remains standing in front of him, his head bowed and his back bent. The infidel personally must place the money on the scales, while the collector holds him by the beard, and strikes him on both cheeks…”. One could argue of the irrelevance of a writing from this period, after all, the Catholic church had some fairly extreme policies during a period spanning the 11th to 16th centuries, which policies and practices in more modern times are viewed by virtually all Catholics as totally alien to their belief system (I was taught in a Catholic school in 1960 that non-Catholics were going to hell – an extreme concept, but one that left judgement to the afterlife). The problem is that those who control the Muslim religion are diametrically opposed to any view on the subject that is newer than the 13th century. To those that are drawing the battle lines, there is no compromise.

So what of the moderates within the Muslim world – the silent majority? One would hope that they would stand up and state loudly and often that their faith, as embraced by the majority, has evolved to a point where it can live in peace with those of other beliefs. That their faith can accept that people have certain inalienable rights that can not be taken by the state, even if the state and the religion are one in the same. I’m listening, but I think that the intimidation of the extremists extends even to those within their religion who would be the voice of reason. There is ample historic precedent for this assertion as well – any scholarly inquiry into the problems faced by Muslims and Arabs will lead to the incontrovertible truth that their leadership has always been the root of their problems.

So I return to whence I began – the Cartoons. I see a parallel between the discourse on that subject and some of the recent gaffes by the left wing of our Democratic Party. A lot of thunder and bluster intended to outrage the masses (cf. NSA wiretaps, Valerie Plume REALLY WAS 007 …), with perhaps the more useful, though unintended, result of showing that the emperor wears no clothes.

Next to Survivorman, Discovorey Channel’s Going Tribal is my favorite reality-based show.

You scored as Millennium Falcon (Star Wars). The world around you is at war. Fortunately you know how to handle that with the greatest of ease. You are one of the best at what you do and no one needs to tell you that. Now if only the droids could be quiet for five seconds. Millennium Falcon (Star Wars) 81% Nebuchadnezzar (The Matrix) 75% Enterprise D (Star Trek) 75% Babylon 5 (Babylon 5) 69% Moya (Farscape) 69% Serenity (Firefly) 69% Deep Space Nine (Star Trek) 63% SG-1 (Stargate) 63% FBI's X-Files Division (The X-Files) 56% Galactica (Battlestar: Galactica) 50% Bebop (Cowboy Bebop) 50% Andromeda Ascendant (Andromeda) 38%

Your Ultimate Sci-Fi Profile II: which sci-fi crew would you best fit in? (pics)
created with QuizFarm.com

Joanne Jacobs shares a story from Bennett, CO. Seems a music teacher showed elementary students segments of a video series designed to acquaint children with opera.

Sounds like a noble goal to me. And perfectly in keeping with her tasks as a music teacher.

Unfortunately, the segment she showed was about the opera Faust. It included scenes with Mephistopheles, a scene showing a man being killed with a sword, and references to suicide. And some parents came unglued.

“Any adult with common sense would not think that video was appropriate for a young person to see. I’m not sure it’s appropriate for a high school student,” Robby Warner said after two of her children saw the video.

Another parent, Casey Goodwin, said, “I think it glorifies Satan in some way.”

The teacher had to send a written apology to the parents of the 250 students she showed the videos too, and has suffered character attacks, as well. Some have even called her a satan worshipper.

You can read the news article here.

I’ve got to say, I consider myself a fundamentalist Christian, and I think the parents were out of line. Maybe Faust isn’t the right material for the age group she showed it to, but that doesn’t make her an evil person.

(crossposted at my personal blog)

There was some confusion yesterday about State’s opinion relative to the “Mohammed” cartoons. So, here’s the “official” line from State Department spokesman Sean McCormack (emphasis mine):

QUESTION:

Yes? Can you say anything about a U.S. response or a U.S. reaction to this uproar in Europe over the Prophet Muhammad pictures? Do you have any reaction to it? Are you concerned that the violence is going to spread and make everything just —

MR. MCCORMACK:

I haven’t seen any — first of all, this is matter of fact. I haven’t seen it. I have seen a lot of protests. I’ve seen a great deal of distress expressed by Muslims across the globe. The Muslims around the world have expressed the fact that they are outraged and that they take great offense at the images that were printed in the Danish newspaper, as well as in other newspapers around the world.

Our response is to say that while we certainly don’t agree with, support, or in some cases, we condemn the views that are aired in public that are published in media organizations around the world, we, at the same time, defend the right of those individuals to express their views. For us, freedom of expression is at the core of our democracy and it is something that we have shed blood and treasure around the world to defend and we will continue to do so. That said, there are other aspects to democracy, our democracy — democracies around the world — and that is to promote understanding, to promote respect for minority rights, to try to appreciate the differences that may exist among us.

We believe, for example in our country, that people from different religious backgrounds, ethnic backgrounds, national backgrounds add to our strength as a country. And it is important to recognize and appreciate those differences. And it is also important to protect the rights of individuals and the media to express a point of view concerning various subjects. So while we share the offense that Muslims have taken at these images, we at the same time vigorously defend the right of individuals to express points of view. We may — like I said, we may not agree with those points of view, we may condemn those points of view but we respect and emphasize the importance that those individuals have the right to express those points of view.

For example — and on the particular cartoon that was published — I know the Prime Minister of Denmark has talked about his, I know that the newspaper that originally printed it has apologized, so they have addressed this particular issue. So we would urge all parties to exercise the maximum degree of understanding, the maximum degree of tolerance when they talk about this issue. And we would urge dialogue, not violence. And that also those that might take offense at these images that have been published, when they see similar views or images that could be perceived as anti-Semitic or anti-Catholic, that they speak out with equal vigor against those images.

QUESTION:

That the Muslims speak out with equal vigor when they see — that’s what you’re asking?

MR. MCCORMACK:

We would — we believe that it is an important principle that peoples around the world encourage dialogue, not violence; dialogue, not misunderstanding and that when you see an image that is offensive to another particular group, to speak out against that. Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images or any other religious belief. We have to remember and respect the deeply held beliefs of those who have different beliefs from us. But it is important that we also support the rights of individuals to express their freely held views.

QUESTION:

So basically you’re just hoping that it doesn’t — I’m sorry I misspoke when I said there was violence, I meant uproar. Your bottom line is that both sides have the right to do exactly as they’re doing and you just hope it doesn’t get worse?

MR. MCCORMACK:

Well, I —

QUESTION:

You just hope it doesn’t escalate.

MR. MCCORMACK:

I gave a pretty long answer, so —

QUESTION:

You did. I’m trying to sum it up for you. (Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK:

Yeah. Sure.

QUESTION:

A couple of years ago, I think it was a couple of years ago when, I think it was the Syrians and the Lebanese were introducing this documentary about the Jews — or it was the Egyptians — this Administration spoke out very strongly about that and called it offensive, said it was —

MR. MCCORMACK:

I just said that the images were offensive; we found them offensive.

QUESTION:

Well, no you said that you understand that the Muslims found them offensive, but —

MR. MCCORMACK:

I’m saying now, we find them offensive. And we certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive.

Yes.

QUESTION:

One word is puzzling me in this, Sean, and that’s the use of the word “unacceptable” and “not acceptable,” exactly what that implies. I mean, it’s not quite obvious that you find the images offensive. When you say “unacceptable,” it applies some sort of action against the people who perpetrate those images.

MR. MCCORMACK:

No. I think I made it very clear that our defense of freedom of expression and the ability of individuals and media organizations to engage in free expression is forthright and it is strong, you know. This is — our First Amendment rights, the freedom of expression, are some of the most strongly held and dearly held views that we have here in America. And certainly nothing that I said, I would hope, would imply any diminution of that support.

QUESTION:

It’s just the one word “unacceptable,” I’m just wondering if that implied any action, you know. But it doesn’t you say?

MR. MCCORMACK:

No.

QUESTION:

Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK:

Yes.

QUESTION:

Do you caution America media against publishing those cartoons?

MR. MCCORMACK:

That’s for you and your editors to decide, and that’s not for the government. We don’t own the printing presses.

QUESTION:

Sean, these cartoons first surfaced in late September and it’s following this recent election with the Palestinian Authority. The EU mission was attacked or held, in effect, by Hamas yesterday near Gaza City. And the tact of some of these European newspapers, again, are to re-publish — these cartoons. Is the election mood — is this what is possibly fueling this and what is our media response to this, a la, what Katherine Hughes may or may not do versus international State Department and government media to the Muslim world, including Indonesia, Asia, and the Middle East?

MR. MCCORMACK:

I don’t think your colleagues really want me to repeat the long answer that I gave to Teri, so I’d refer you to that answer.

QUESTION:

All right.

MR. MCCORMACK:

Yes, George.

QUESTION:

Getting back to your next question, nobody doubts the right of newspapers, et cetera, to print such drawings as appeared in Europe, but is it the responsible thing to do — or is it — or would it be irresponsible to do what the European newspapers did because of the sensitivities involved?

MR. MCCORMACK:

George, we, as a Government, have made our views known on the question of these images. We find them offensive. We understand why others may find them offensive. We have urged tolerance and understanding. That — all of that said, the media organizations are going to have to make their own decisions concerning what is printed, George. This is — it’s not for the U.S. Government to dictate what is printed.

QUESTION:

You’re not dictating — everybody knows you can’t order people not to —

MR. MCCORMACK:

Right.

QUESTION:

— print this or that, but you might have on your hands the same kind of problem that the Europeans find —

MR. MCCORMACK:

You’re right, you’re right.

QUESTION:

— now. So, I just thought that there might be a word or two saying — you know, that — you know, you should do your best not to incite people because this — you’re dealing with deeply-held beliefs.

MR. MCCORMACK:

You’re right. You’re right. You are dealing with deeply-held beliefs and certainly, we have talked about the importance of urging tolerance and appreciating differences and to respect the fact that many of — millions and millions of people around the world would find these images — these particular images offensive. But whether or not American media chooses to reproduce those images is a question for them, for them alone to answer, not for us.

I am rapidly becoming a fan of The Perricone Weight Loss Diet. It seems to incorporate all of the latest real science on the matter. And the only thing I see that’s medically “out there” is Dr. Perricone’s stress on cellular inflammation. I don’t know that this is BS, I just haven’t heard it elsewhere.

I’ve been something of an athlete for most of my adult life. But I became rather inactive after I contracted chronic antibiotic resistant rhinosinusitis sometime in the late ’90s – and subsequently gained a lot of weight. So I particularly like his ideas on losing weight without losing muscle mass. The only time I have really “dieted” in my life was back when I was in the Air Force. I was hitting the weight room 3 times a week, and doing a 2 mile run the other 3 (with one day off). I was a very “dense” 217 lbs. But the freaking “chart” said, at 20 years old and 6 feet tall, I couldn’t be more than 187. So I quit the workouts and the running, and cut way back on my calorie intake, and dropped the thirty pounds by my next weigh-in (it was three months later, IIRC), and avoided the “fat boy” program. But I felt like shit.

So, here’s a diet where you eat real food in satisfactory quantities (albeit in a different balance than you are likely accustomed), loose fat without losing muscle, feel good, and even have a nice complexion (Perricone’s specialty is dermatology) – sounds like a good deal to me.

A couple of weeks ago, a friend of mine from the San Fernando valley emailed me asking if I knew where he could get a DVD of Black & Blue¹ (another of the greatest concert films ever). I checked around for a couple of days. And, after finding nothing, save for what seemed to be a bootleg on an auction site (for actually more than retail, when you add S&H), I suggested he go down to Rhino Records in West LA.

Well, much to my surprise, I got another email today, saying Rhino Records is closed (along with another called Aron’s, which I’ve heard of, but never been to).

Egad! For the last 25 years or so, Rhino Records has been a SoCal institution. It was the one place where, no matter what your musical tastes, you could get anything. Checking around the web, it seems online music sales have cost them too much business. And founder, Richard Foos, thinks the only future for brick-and-mortar record stores is for small, and highly specialized (niche market), mom-and-pop stores – with a very loyal customer base.

This is a shame. Like so many other products, the convenience of buying music online can’t be denied. But there is something magic about browsing through the bins of a good record store. Although I must admit, much of that has died with the demise of the BVD².

Notes:

1. It seems the Black & Blue DVD (a 2002 remaster, which I simply must hear) is sold out, but another release is planned this year.

2. BVD: Black Vinyl Disk.

BlackFive (the Paratrooper of Love) will be on CNN this weekend, talking about, in his words, the uber-coverage of the Woodruff wounding.

He had a good post about same, a few days ago.

I didn’t go into the office today, because what I’m doing this week can be done from home. So I didn’t see any one from work, or talk to anyone from work, or check my voicemail (because I rarely get any, so why bother).

If I *had* checked my voicemail, then I wouldn’t have been so surprised by the email I received at 430pm, with a subject line: “(co-worker’s) funeral arrangements”

One of my co-workers, who works in a different city, is no longer with us. I racked my brain, trying to remember if I’d heard of him being ill, and couldn’t remember anything like that. One of my co-workers called to make sure I knew, and told me that he didn’t come to work Tues. morning, and they found him dead in his home. The cause of death is unknown, at this time.

He was younger than I, and easy to talk to. I didn’t have tons of interaction with him, since we’re in different cities, but I still feel the loss, and can only describe myself as stunned.

There should be something profound I can say here, about the frailty of life, but profundity is escaping me, just now.

I’ll miss you, B. Godspeed.

On his blog, Austin Bay, a commentator I generally revere, celebrates President Bush’s decrial of America’s “addiction to oil.”

Bay, you are a fucking idiot. America has no addiction to oil. What we are addicted to is energy. And, as I will show later, that is hardly a bad thing.

But, let us assume for the moment, that we are “addicted to oil”, and with us, of course. the entire modern world. Well, can we agree that the most egregious manifestation of this “addiction” is the dependence upon foreign sources? And as such, we should drill in such places as ANWR? NO! absolutely not! (Except for that the persons to whom that resource rightfully belongs – the citizens of Alaska, and, mostly, the native Americans who live there, WANT it exploited.) As long as we can afford to buy it, we should suck the rest of the world dry. And then, when the end times come, we can say, “fuck you – we got oil, you got nothin’.”

But, all that aside, let us talk about “America’s ‘addiction’ to oil:” This is total fuckin’ green-speak: I am amazed that our President is buying into it. We are not “addicted to oil;” we are addicted to energy. And this is a good thing.

I would like to see a President deliver a SotU address, saying “I intend to have this nation double it’s energy consumption in the next five years.”

And why, you ask? Because, truth be told, energy consumption is directly analogous to “wealth”. The greenies like to kvetch over the fact that “we consume one forth of the world’s energy,” This is fitting, as we produce one forth of the world’s wealth.

And this has nothing to do with efficiency. Indeed, we are making twice the out put, per unit volume of energy, as we were 25 years ago. And this is a number, contrary to the Rousseauian pipe dreams of the greenies, the “emerging economies” of the world can’t nearly match.

So, “addiction to oil”…

Yes, most certainly, we use lots of energy. And, personally, I couldn’t give a shit if that energy was used to take Khan Jr. to soccer practice, or create a revolutionary new heart valve. But, you know what? We do both! And we do it better than any society in human history.

And the lefty-greenie-apocalypse folks (wow, isn’t that some sort of weird dichotomy?) Are aghast at this: surely we could have all the benefits of modern technology, without it’s costs!

And does that mean we are “addicted to oil?” Bullshit: we are “addicted” to wealth. And, we are addicted to efficiency. Why? you ask…

Because efficiency yields the most wealth for the least input. And, just now, petroleum is the most efficient means of delivering energy, and wealth. But, wake up Bush, the free market is way ahead of the curve here.

Update: Austin has done an update, and I agree, when viewed as a message to foreign oil exporters, rather than domestic greenies, the “addiction to oil” line makes much more sense.

Sand and shale oil is our ticket out of this conundrum. And, at $60+/bl. it’s profitable (IIRC, Suncor has said they make money at $40)

And, of course, the Arctic (which Russia claims about half of) has yet to be explored.

Update 2: In today’s WSJ Best of the Web James Taranto gets it right:

One decidedly false note came when Bush complained that “America is addicted to oil” and promised new government programs aimed at a great goal: to replace more than 75% of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.” This seemed just like wrongheaded palaver, boob bait for bobos. If we’re going to democratize the Middle East, why do we need to reduce imports of oil from the region?

Update 3: I am currently watching Edward Murphy, Refining Director of the American Petroleum Institute, on C-SPAN. And, as I have explained in the comments, biofuels from virdin stock is a fool’s game. But, he seems to feel that. The focus of Mr. Bush’s Advanced Energy Initiative would be ethanol from bio-waste. While I still don’t believe we need a government prgram to promote it, that could be a viable technology.