Thank you, Pakistan.

Thank you, Pakistan.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 9 words, total size 1 kb.

Mohammed at Iraq the Model

Mohammed at Iraq the Model response to the suicide bombing in Iraq today (hat tip: Martini Boy)

What hurts more than this daily terror is the soft way the
world is using to deal with the situation.
I believe that the presence of this terror is just a matter of time, as
hatred and deception can̢۪t last forever, but the reactions of some
parts provide it with the support it needs and give it a second chance.
Yes, all we need is the will and determination to crush a company that
is so close to bankruptcy but the disgraceful doings of some parts
postpone it once again, like what Spain, Manilla and Egypt lately did.
What̢۪s even worse and disgusting is that these governments smugly
come and ask the admirably determined nation Australia to apologize
while it̢۪s them who must apologize to the whole world for their awful
mistakes that encouraged terrorists and reassured them that their
criminal tactics can work.
These countries have found excuses for terror and gave the terrorists
the motives to carry on with their plans as long as these plans can
make "sovereign countries" yield in front of a true criminal action.
They̢۪re cooperating with the criminals and they make it easier for
terrorists to increase their activities in Iraq and elsewhere. This is
the goal of terror and this is what these countries offered the
terrorists on a gold plate. They̢۪ve said clearly "do more of your
work, as it will definitely bring an outcome that satisfy your sickness
and illusions".

This will undoubtedly be the most linked piece in the blogosphere
today, but go and read the whole thing. It's important.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, I fixed it. No

Well, I fixed it. No thanks to anyone from Blogger Support, those lame,
worthless bunch of lackeys who couldn't even bother to---ahem--- answer an email within a twenty-four hour period.
The new graphical interface posting window has been inserting all sorts
of extra code into posts. Apparently, on the post related to Andrew
Gilligan there was something odd in the code that set the whole damn
thing off. I have no idea what it was, but the post has been deleted
and will not reappear lest it gives me crap again. So, what to do?
Well, I'll be sticking with Blogger for the time being, as there is an
option where I can simply write in the old-fashioned straight-up HTML
window and life should be fine. Gawd, what a runaround for very
freakin' little.

Posted by: Kathy at 09:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 144 words, total size 1 kb.

Okaaaaaaay. Let's see if this

Okaaaaaaay.
Let's see if this works without messing up the works.

Posted by: Kathy at 09:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

...that the Pious Agnostic has

...that the Pious Agnostic has called Round Two for Lizzie.
I'm dancing like Deion Sanders right now.

Posted by: Kathy at 08:57 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

For this post and this

For this post and this post only. Feel free to skip on by if you so choose.

Am I the only one who couldn't honestly care less about what's happening at the Democratic National Convention?

Anyway, a few observations:

1. Theresa Heinz Kerry is no lady. I read a bit of Kevin Drum's commentary on the whole "shove it" episode and then read some of his commenter's opinions. (Hat Tip: Vodkapundit) One in particular stuck out like a sore thumb.

Yeah, I have to admit, I've never understood the appeal of
Laura Bush. She gives out a seriously strong "plastic robot" vibe. I'm
sure she's a wonderful person and all (and certainly she's been given
credit for stopping Georgie's public drunkenness), but... eurgh.

A plastic robot vibe? Keeping your nose out of your husband's business, and I mean BUSINESS,
does not mean one is a "plastic robot." It simply means one has the
good sense to know what is your business and what isn't. If Theresa
Heinz Kerry wants to run for President, fine, go for it, provided she
can get the Constitution amended. I have no issues with that. But don't
defend a foul-mouthed woman by comparing her to a woman who chooses not
to polarize the populace with her actions.
,
Yeah. Like I'm one to call someone "foul-mouthed." I know I don't have
a leg to stand on, but the woman is deluded. She said the words,
"un-American traits." A reporter, whom her spokeswoman claimed worked
for a "right-wing rag" asked for clarification on that phrase, she
claimed she'd never said it and then told him to shove it. Who's in the
right here and who's in the wrong? Who's pushing the agenda? Not the
reporter, that's for sure. She should apologize. Furthermore, she
should know her place. Yes, I too, hate that phrase, but it fits. Sue
me. Her place is as potential First Lady, not as policy wonk or
official mouthpiece of the Kerry campaign. She's there to wave, be
pretty and do whatever it is wives do on the campaign trail. If she
didn't know that going in and now wants her share of the spotlight,
well, that's just tough, isn't it? Ultimately, all of this is comes
down to the current conundrum that revolves around "the office" of
First Lady. Just because women have different roles nowadays, and can
bring the proverbial bacon home and then fry it up in pan doesn't mean
that two hundred plus years of tradition gets thrown out with the
bathwater. It just doesn't. If you want a position within the
government well, get yourself elected or appointed. But don't think you
have a say in what goes on, or that your opinion matters just because
of whom you're married to. The world just doesn't work that way.
Eleanor Roosevelt only made her contributions because her husband
wanted her to---and allowed her to---not because she had any political
standing, and the goodwill that comes with standing, as First Lady.
Hillary Clinton is a senator now. Good for her. But it doesn't excuse
her virtual coup d'etat with her health care commission when she was
First Lady. Hillary put herself between the rock and the hard place
there. She ignored tradition. She ignored that she was there to support
her husband, and that in itself can be a full-time job. She wanted
changes, however, and she got herself elected. Good for her. But she
should not be considered the role model of what a First Lady should
ever be. She is an anomaly. Laura Bush is a wife. Wife, by its current
usage, is not a limiting label, but first and foremost, in my opinion,
it means you're one half of a partnership; you're one half of a team
who wants to work for a goal. Most of us don't have ambitions as lofty
as the White House; most of us just want to live and raise a family and
for that we would like, and need, a partner. The Bushes are different,
and I have no doubts that President Bush would support his wife in
whatever she wanted to do, just like she's supporting him in what he
sees is the path he should follow. Can you honestly say the same of
Theresa Heinz Kerry? To me, she shows all the hallmarks of a woman who
thinks she got the better end of a quid pro quo marriage. There is a
difference.
The problem with the Democratic acceptance, and trumpeting, of her
remarks is that she will now be encouraged to get mouthy. Perhaps
"problem" is the wrong word. I don't see it as a problem. If the
Democrats want to put this woman forward, fine. Let her hang herself
and the entire Kerry campaign by echoing Hillary's behavior. Not a
problem for me. I just don't want to listen to it, and I don't want my
fellow sorority sister (Yes, Mrs. Bush and I are members of the same
sorority. Same with Lynne Cheney. And Nancy Kassebaum Baker. And Ann
Margret, too.) being bashed because of what this woman says. It's not
fair.
2. Have I mentioned that I don't care anything about this convention
and am completely bored by it?
3. Wonkette has a commenting
job on MTV. Whoop-de-freaking-doo. Anderson Cooper interviewed her last
night and I kept shouting, "Ass F@#$ing! Ass F@#$ing! C'mon! SAY IT,
Beeeyotch! Show us what you're REALLY famous for in the blogosphere!"
at the television. She never obliged me. Reportedly she has class now
that she's the senior commentator for MTV News. Whoo. Color me
impressed!
4. Andrew Sullivan had
better just endorse Kerry or risk lynching by all of the people who
have supported him over the past couple of years for his hawkish views.
Memo to Andrew: You're abandoning your hawkish audience by even
thinking that Kerry is a decent alternative. But that's your choice.
Fine, but GET IT OVER WITH, ANDREW. Just endorse the guy already. I
don't have an issue with it. I don't mind that you write for different
audiences, either. What I do have a problem with is guilting us into
giving you money while keeping us on the hook. You led us to believe
you held one thing above all others. Now you don't. Clarification is
needed. I would simply ask that, if you're actually going to endorse
Kerry, do it before your pledge drive is over with, please? People who
have supported you enthusiastically over the years have a right to know
where you stand before you write something that will make them quit
your blog. This pledge drive smacks of a short con. If Sunday's Times
op-ed is any indication, it appears you're going to endorse Kerry for
Prez. Then the very next morning, what should await us at the Dish but
a pledge drive? This doesn't appear to be a coincidence. Don't milk it
for all its worth before you pull the rug out from under a good portion
of your readership. It's dishonest and downright BBC-ish.
Ok, I feel better now. The ELECTION-FREE ZONE RULE is now
back in place.

Posted by: Kathy at 07:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1200 words, total size 7 kb.

I was in the mood

I was in the mood for an espionage flick the other night and, not
seeing anything that tripped my trigger in the new releases section,
went browsing and ultimately wound up picking out Enigma.
I've seen this movie a few times and I should just buy it, because I
will keep on renting it. Based on the Robert Harris novel of the same
name, the story revolves around a brilliant, but fresh off a nervous
breakdown, mathematician named Tom Jericho. Jericho, disgraced in an
era where mental illness didn't purportedly exist, has nonetheless been
pulled back into Bletchley Park. The reason for Jericho's reappearance?
The German U-Boats have gone completely off-line: they've switched
codebooks and blocked the Brit codebreakers out---right before a large
convoy of ships from America, bearing Allied war material, hits the
mid-Atlantic, out of reach of air support and rescuing. It's essential
that Shark, the U-boat code, is cracked, but it seems an impossible
task to accomplish in the few short days offered.
Add into this, the woman Jericho had been seeing before his breakdown,
has disappeared. Quickly he discovers, with the help of her best
friend, that her disappearance and the abrupt lock-out of Shark are
intertwined. I simply have no idea, when we get so much absolute crap
out of Hollywood, how this film was overlooked. It's wonderful. It was
written by Tom Stoppard, who I believe is our modern-day Shakespeare,
and whose screenplay actually makes the movie better than the book. I
read Harris novel quite some time ago, but it failed to make a lasting
impression on me, mainly because of his convoluted explanations of what
an Enigma machine actually did, and how much goddamn math was involved
to break it. The movie, however, is much, much better and a must-see
for anyone interested in what's involved in code-breaking, let alone
anyone who, like myself, is a spy-movie junkie.
The performances, wonderful to start out with, yet somehow manage to
improve with multiple viewings. In particular Jeremy Northam's smarmy
spy-catcher, Wigram. The character is just so damn snotty and superior
you can't help but be absorbed in watching all of the various maneuvers
Northam makes to bring this man to life---because, honestly and truly,
you don't notice them the first time around: you're too busy wondering
what his game is. On second viewing, however, the words, while
important, lose some of their hold on you. You start to notice the
little things that Northam did to make this man come to life, like the
way he walks with absolute confidence, as if he's a man in control of
his environment and faculties. The coat worn draped over the shoulders,
which no one but the most confident of men can ever get away with. The
gleeful twitchiness that comes over him, which he doesn't bother to
restrain, when he interrogates Jericho. It's truly one of the
overlooked performances of the decade because of its subtlety. If this
movie had come out around Christmas time, I'd wager that Northam would
be propping open his back door with an Oscar right about now. So,
anyway, longwinded as usual, but go and rent this. It's well worth two
hours of your time.

Posted by: Kathy at 06:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 545 words, total size 3 kb.

Ok, so between errands and

Ok, so between errands and Wee Bastard's inconvenient tendency of late
to keep !@#$@ing crashing on me, I'm a wee bit late getting these
posted.
You can find round one here and round two here.

Here's Robert's Bonus Round Entry:

One of my college English professors had such a deep-seated
dislike of the Regency class system in general and Emma Woodhouse in
particular that she felt the only characters worthy of any sympathy in
Emma were the gypsies who attacked Harriet. While I do not suspect
Kathleen of such Jacobin leanings, my answer to her lingering
resentment towards Emma the rich girl is the same as I gave the prof:
Had Austen meant the book to be a morality tale about the evils of
excessive, unearned wealth, she would have written it from a different
perspective with a different ending and made Emma far less sympathetic
– indeed, she’d be just another Catherine De Bourgh. As for
Kathy̢۪s doubts about Emma̢۪s maturation, on what are they based?
Surely Emma̢۪s changing attitudes towards Martin, which bookend the
story, symbolize her growth. What of Emma̢۪s apology to Miss Bates
after Box Hill? Her meeting of minds with Jane Fairfax? Her refusal to
abandon her father upon marriage? As for Harriet̢۪s engagement,
Emma’s relief comes not from being “let off the hook” about
encouraging Harriet to go for Knightly. (In fact, Emma had mistakenly
thought Harriet interested in Frank Churchill.) Instead, it is based on
Emma̢۪s awakening to her own love for Knightly whom, by the way, it is
very unlikely Austen meant to doom to life with an unrepentant flake.
No, in the end Emma grows up. The lessons are finally taken to heart.
Our delight and satisfaction come from watching this happen.

And here's mine:

Robert is right when he says Emma is a study in
character development. I fail to see, however, where there is much
character in Miss Woodhouse to develop. Ultimately, as the audience, we
find ourselves rooting for Emma to overcome obstacles which she herself
has placed in her way. I find very little satisfaction in stupidity as
a plot device.
This, however, is not the case with Pride and Prejudice. While both novels were written by Austen, her divergent approach to her protagonists produced vastly different results. Emma is a passive read. You root for Emma because you have to, not because you want to: her sole purpose is to entertain you, as if she were a street performer. Pride and Prejudice,
however, engages you in Lizzie̢۪s struggle. Her conflicts are outside
herself, yet they are clear and delineated in such a way that you may
imagine about how much is riding on her actions. The novel that sets an
imagination to work is also the novel that challenges the reader to
become involved. Pride and Prejudice is that novel. It is an active story: it brings you into its folds; it involves you in a way that Emma doesn̢۪t and as a result, is the superior novel.

Stanley Crouch once said that reading is an active engagement; an author must make their reader want to turn the page. Pride and Prejudice encourages you to avidly turn the page because it engages your emotions, rather than just your sense of fine comedy.

You can also find these at The Llllllamabutchers.

Comment, comment, comment! Either here or there. Let us know who won this frickin' smackdown!

UPDATE: seldom sober's
calling it for Lizzie. HA! Although, I will admit, never in my lifetime
would I have thought that cheering on Emma would be compared to rooting
for Saddam Hussein. Not like I'm complaining, but it's interesting
nonetheless.
Question is, will Robert be grossly insulted? Methinks he will be and
he'll be shouting "pistols at dawn!" before you know it.

Posted by: Kathy at 06:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 641 words, total size 4 kb.

Sheesh. Busy, but relatively boring

Sheesh.
Busy, but relatively boring day. Didn't get anything done that I wanted
to get done---other than buying shampoo and conditioner at the mall,
but that's really here nor there. A lot of running around. Very little
accomplished in actuality. But now I can finally sit down and throw up
a few posts to keep the rabid wolves that are my audience happy. Yeah.
Right. Whatever.
We'll start off with a little meme stuff and go from there. A meme.
Yes. I'm a sucker. From you know who. Of course. It's not my fault. Honestly.

If you had your choice between this and that, what would you do?

1. Skipping and Running? Christ. Neither. Ugh. Exercise. Sweating is involved.

2. Coke or Pepsi? Diet, people. DIET. That said, Coke always and forever.

3. Rock or Hip Hop Rock? Rock and Roll. The old fashioned kind, thank you ever so much.

4. Laptop or Desktop? Wee bastard is a laptop. An ancient one with Arabic-Enabled beginnings, but it still works.

5. Cold Weather or Hot Weather? Hot weather. I am not one of
those people who lives in Minnesota because they get off on ice fishing
or hockey or snowshoeing, or cross country skiing, or just because they
really like firing up their snowblower at four a.m. to get a head
start because the weather forecast said it was going to snow until
Monday. Since it's Saturday and I can never sleep in anyway, well,
that's just what I like to do. I live here because the husband got
a job that moved us here a while back and we've been here ever since.
If I had my way, we'd move south. 6. Swimming or Bicycling? Swimming. But I like biking, too.

7. Chocolate or Vanilla? Why choose? I know I'm supposed to
choose. That this is the whole point of this exercise, but I'm a
contrarian. That's just who I am. Don't force your artificial
constructs on me, maaaan.

8. Day or Night? Night.

9. Looks or Brains? Both, if possible. If brains aren't possible, well, a nice ass goes a long way in lieu of a brain.

10. Cable, DSL, or Dial-Up? DSL. Since 1999. If you hadn't figured it out, we're early adapters here at the Cake Eater Pad.

Posted by: Kathy at 06:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 391 words, total size 2 kb.

...why don't I just whack

...why don't I just whack it some more, eh?

More Darfur.

{...}U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said
Washington wanted to strengthen its original resolution to "put teeth"
behind the U.N. agreement with the Sudanese government on July 3. Sudan promised Annan in the July 3 agreement that it would rein in
the Janjaweed militiamen, but Annan's representative in Khartoum, Jan
Pronk, said Wednesday that the government has made "no progress
whatsoever."
Sudan's Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail accused the United States
and Britain of meddling, saying their increased pressure was the same
tactic they used against Iraq. He told a news conference in Paris that
threatening Sudan with international sanctions would complicate the
Darfur crisis. The new U.S. draft for the first time directly threatens
sanctions against the Sudanese government. It also calls for an arms
embargo on Darfur, which would apply to individuals, groups or
governments that supply the Janjaweed or rebel groups. The original
U.S. resolution of June 30 called for an arms embargo and travel ban on
the Janjaweed. It did not call for action against the Sudanese
government, but said the sanctions would be reviewed in 30 days and
could be extended. Many Security Council ambassadors called the latest
U.S. draft a good basis for discussion. They included France, China,
Algeria, Brazil, Germany and Pakistan. There is no outright opposition to the draft, but several council
members, including Pakistan, Russia and China, had called for Sudan to
be given sufficient time to meet its commitments under the July 3
agreement, and appeared reluctant even to threaten sanctions. "It's a
basis on which we can work and we hope it will lead to a consensus as
soon as possible," Pakistan's U.N. Ambassador Munir Akram told The
Associated Press. "We have to see what is the approach to sanctions,
exactly what we should do now, and what we should threaten now, and
what we should keep in our pocket for later."

{emphasis mine}

Sigh. Here comes the full-time hedging.

And then we have the Sudanese Foreign Minister laying down threats against the US and Britain.

"The increase in pressure from the United States and Great Britain is
... the same as the increase in pressure that they put against Iraq,"
Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail said at a news conference in
Paris. Ismail also said Britain should think twice before choosing a
course of action in Darfur, a vast region of Sudan where a 15-month
conflict has killed up to 30,000 people, forced over 1 million to flee
their homes and left 2.2 million in desperate need of food and
medicine. The death toll could surge to more than 350,000 if aid
doesn't reach more than 2 million people soon, the U.S. Agency for
International Development has warned. According to British press
reports, Prime Minister Tony Blair was ruling out "absolutely nothing"
in responding to the crisis. But Ismail suggested it would be a mistake
for Blair to send troops. "If he is going to send troops to Darfur, we
will withdraw our troops and give him a chance to maintain security,"
Ismail said. "You know what is going to happen in one or two months, these
troops are going to be considered by the people of Darfur as occupying
forces, and you'll have the same incidents you are facing in Iraq."

{insert shaking of head here}

Posted by: Kathy at 05:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 570 words, total size 4 kb.

..."tell us something we didn't

..."tell us something we didn't know" category.

Sheesh. Better biometrics. A new intelligence czar. C'mon people. That was a whole lot of angst for nothing new.

UPDATE: The 9/11 Commission Report.
Go read it. Really. See if you can find something we didn't already
know about in there.
I triple dog dare you.

Posted by: Kathy at 04:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

Hallelujah! Just what I needed.

Hallelujah! Just what I needed. A silly German story!

Ahem. Without further ado, I present....

... the idiot who called the phone sex worker back and then bitched about the bill.

Posted by: Kathy at 04:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

Snort First time pr0n searcher?

Snort

First time pr0n searcher?

Posted by: Kathy at 04:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

The reason I ditched you

The reason I ditched you all on Friday afternoon was because the
husband and I went to go see a movie. I know. Shocker! They actually left the house! Amazing! We didn't think that was possible any more! {Sniff} We're so proud of you!
Yeah, ok. Whatever.
It was a choice between Spiderman 2 and The Bourne Supremacy. I wanted
to see Bourne. He wanted to see Spidey. We flipped a coin and he won.
Oh well. This is our tried and true marriage saver. We've been using it
for almost ten years and it has consistently done right by us. There's
no moaning and groaning when someone loses because that movie is the
next one on the list to see. It's fair and it works, and there's no
stupid grudge holding because you didn't get to see the movie you
wanted to see this time around. When used as a simple tool for setting
moving viewing priorities, the-coin-toss-as-movie-picker works rather
well and saves much angst. If you're going to consistently use it just
to beat the one you love into submission about your coin flipping
skills, well, don't be surprised when you hit romantic comedy hell. The
laws of probabilities run both ways, you know?
So, we shot off to see Spiderman 2. The husband could barely contain
himself. As a member of the phylla Geekus Extraordinarius, he is a big
Spidey fan. Read the comic book for years. Knows the history inside and
out. He's one of those guys Sam Raimi impressed tremendously with the
first one, and he couldn't wait to see this one. His verdict: better
than the first.
My verdict: WOW! I thought they'd done a good job with the first one,
but this one was much, much better. Why?
Character development. One of the reasons they make these comic book
movies is that the characters are interesting and they face interesting
conflicts. In theory. Most of the time, however, the fine line between
action and drama is stomped out by some random Doc Marten-wearing
producer who, in true Buddy Ackerman
fashion, wants more explosions and gunfire and less character
development.
Spidey 2 is not that movie, fortunately. Sure enough, there's plenty of
action, but there are also major dilemmas (and some not so major) that
Peter Parker must face and resolve. It's so damn satisfying when you
get to the end that you want to shout "Hallelujah" because you just
spent $5.50 (and that was at a matinee!) and, for once, you weren't
disappointed. They told a great story in a great way, and if there was
actually any justice in this world, Spidey 2 would be up for some
Oscars next year, and not only in the techie categories. Tobey Maguire
is wonderful, as is Rosemary Harris. Whomever decided to ask her to
play Aunt May is a genius and God Bless them. No one else could have
whacked Doc Ock with an umbrella---in true little old lady
fashion---and gotten away with it. Vedict: Go and see it. It is so
worth your time and money. You won't be disappointed.

Posted by: Kathy at 04:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 527 words, total size 3 kb.

Fausta brings up this point:

Fausta brings up this point:

However, for a more difficult choice, would it be Colin Firth as P&P's Mr. Darcy, or Alan Rickman as Col. Brandon?

Now, I will admit, I hadn't thought about this. There is
something very "daddyish" about Colonel Brandon's relationship with
Marianne that, I will admit freely, creeps me out a wee bit. Then I
must force myself to remember that standards were different in those
days, shorter life spans, etc. But still....eeeew.
I became more fond of the character of Colonel Brandon when they cast
Alan Rickman to play him: made him much, much more attractive in my
eyes. I can deal with a relationship when the man is old enough to be a
woman's father, but when I read Sense and Sensibility, I always got the impression that the good Colonel was old enough to be Marianne's grandfather.
Completely wrongheaded of me, but you know how once odd ideas get into
your head they stick. This one stuck. Alan made me appreciate the
Colonel in a whole new way, which I was glad for because I'm a big fan
of Alan. So, here is your new choice:

Colonel Brandon

or


Darcy?

I still think Darcy wins. HANDS DOWN. But hey, you might think differently.

Posted by: Kathy at 04:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 2 kb.

Still no contact from Blogger.

Still no contact from Blogger.
I've gone way past simply not being pleased. I am pissed off. So now
I'm posting a plea for help: if there is anyone out there who is also
on Blogspot, who has dealt with this problem and knows how to fix it,
please email me or leave a comment.
I will be in your debt.

Posted by: Kathy at 04:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

I hate to admit this,

I hate to admit this, but I don't really like it when the author of a
piece shows up here and then calls me out. Ahem. General Cake Eater
Disclaimer: no
one is actually supposed to read this thing and think that whatever I
might be spouting off about is actually worthy of their consideration.
Nine times out of ten, I might as well be smoking crack for all the
sense I make. Really, it's not worth your time to stop by.

In other words, I'm not frickin' Andrew Sullivan, fer chrissakes.

But it does happen. Last time was with the online editor of The Weekly Standard---a guy by the name of Jonathan Last, who was just on Dennis Miller
the other night, by the way. (Good job, Jonathan! Your caricature on
the Standard's website really doesn't look a thing like you.) This time
it's Andrew Morse about my commentary in this post.
He left a comment that's worthy enough to deserve a fresh post, because
in my usual big-mouthed way, I have a few things to add. We'll do it in
a line-by line sort of way, because I want to. Hi. I'm unenlightened Andrew. I am aware of the north-south situation in Sudan, and how it has effected the situation in Darfur. He leaves a link to this article he
wrote. First off, you're not unenlightened, I thought your commentary
was for the simple reason you did not mention the situation in the
south and how it was affecting the response in Darfur, and how it had
the capability of making it even worse. I can see now that I'm wrong. I
did troll the archives at Tech Central Station to see what else you'd
written, but that article didn't come up. For what it's worth, I'm
sorry, but there have been so many people chiming in on Darfur and on
Sudan, in general, that it's very hard to know who's honestly informed
and who's just been Googling madly. You didn't write one word about
southern secession and it was a bit stupefying. As a result, I lumped
you in with that group and I'm sorry for it.
That June article is very informative and explains things rather
nicely. It should be a must read for anyone who wants to throw their
two cents in on this topic. I am impressed by your coverage of the situation in Sudan, but
honestly do not understand your reverence for the bastard child of the
colonial era known as the state of Sudan.
Thank you, but Dear God, is that the impression you got? Yikes. To
clarify, I have no love or reverence for Bashir and his cronies. They
are Machiavellian in a way that would make even that most astute
political observer blush. I don't hold them up as an example for
prudent and fair leadership. They are representative of the precise
opposite. If their dealings with the south hadn't convinced me or
anyone of that, then Darfur would and should have. That said, however,
most of my conclusions about the worthiness of Darfurian secession, and
the general action currently required in Darfur, are based on the
simple premise that this man and his government will not be ejected
from power anytime soon. He's managed to not only stay in power, but
has managed to make large gains in the midst of a civil war and a
genocide. For better or ill, that says something about his
capabilities. He's there and he's simply not going anywhere. It could
be surmised that by simply dealing with him on Darfur, instead of
taking interventionist measures, Kofi Annan, the UN, and the United
States have added to his legitimacy and have propped him up. I don't
know whether that's the case or not, but Sudan is still on the Human
Rights Commission at the UN and the US still has a consulate in
Khartoum. Perhaps more important is how Bashir manages to keep the
international community out of his internal dealings. After all, he
managed to keep them out of the South for over twenty years. That in
itself is a somewhat amazing feat. Of course he was aided in this by
the western media's refusal/inability to cover the story, and the
general remoteness of the locations involved, but he made use of it.
This behavior lingers on and I would go so far as to make the case that
he's being helped with the genocide in Darfur by the refusal of
Security Council members to take an active role. Any resolution that
gets passed through the Security Council will be toothless, because the
sad fact of the matter is that the US hasn't the political capital to
move something more forceful through the Council. France, Russia and
China all have their own interests in getting the peace deal signed,
sealed and delivered. They have deals inked with Bashir's government:
it makes no sense that they would do anything that would tick off
Bashir right now, when they're finally on the verge of seeing results.
If there was ever a situation where you could honestly say, "No Blood
for Oil," it would be this one. However, no one, it seems, is willing
to attribute that sort of capricious greed to the French, and so we get
the "is or isn't it genocide?" arguments that make the floor of the UN
seem like high comedy.
I digress, but I think you get the point: while it would be preferable
for Bashir to go, I don't think he's moving from his spot, and he knows
how to work the international community to his own ends. He's in a very
strong position right now, and people are talking to him and his
government---not his opposition. While I'm not fond of Bashir and what
he's done to his country and can definitely see the benefit of removing
him from power but I simply cannot see it happening. This also affects
removing Darfur from Sudan, because he wouldn't allow for it. It's a
simple difference between the idealistic and the realistic. You posed the following, perhaps rhetorical, question, "And let's
be clear about the Sudanese Army's superiority: would the refugees have
run if they were armed? Are we now going to arm them to ensure that the
secession succeeds?” Well, yes. Though the American public has always
been wary of supporting foreign interventions, they have a historical
willingness to arm local resistance against totalitarian oppressors.
Is there a Darfur resistance group willing to take up this charge? Or
would it just be the SPLA/M that we would be arming, and who would be
organizing the resistance? If what I've read in the past is correct,
then they're in Darfur right now and are providing some little
resistance and protection for the refugees. Despite American claims to
the contrary, that "we will not have peace in the south on the backs of
those in Darfur," would that honestly be the case if the guns would be
going to the SPLA/M and those who decided to jump in? Wouldn't it then
be possible that, sometime in the near future, the situation could be
reversed? That there would again be war in the south on the backs of
those in Darfur? I'm leery of Garang and his cronies, much as you
pointed out in your June commentary, in that it's possible they would
use an instance of armed resistance in Darfur to further bolster their
own claims should the peace accords not prove effective enough in
practice. The last thing the people of Sudan need---in Darfur or the
south---is more fuel to the flames. It's a tricky situation, no doubt,
and I don't claim to be an expert on this sort of thing, but it appears
to me that arming those in Darfur would only be counterproductive in
the present, while more beneficial in the future? Question is, how many
eggs are we willing to break to make the omelette? And how successful
would the cookery be in the end? All of this, of course, makes the
assumption that the SPLA/M is actually in Darfur. What I read seems to
indicate this, but I don't know for sure and I could be making a whole
lot of hooey for nothing. As far as the American public being willing
to arm those who are willing to fight against totalitarian oppressors,
again, as far as Farfur is concerned, there is too much riding on the
deal in the south to allow such a thing. I'm speaking only in
generalities here, but the United States does not favor intervention of
any sort. They want to help, but they're not going to send troops, and
they're not going arm the people of Darfur. I simply cannot see that
sort of alternative being offered up on the floor of the House as a
solution to the problem. Again, the reality of the situation is such
that the US has very little political capital to expend on this issue
at the UN, and I do believe despite Colin Powell's visit and our strong
words to the contrary, there is not much we can do about it in reality.
When Sudanese refugees seek safety, why do they run to Chad?
Because Chad is a garden oasis surrounded by impenetrable defenses?
Because the reputation of the mighty Chadian armed forces intimidates
all who come near? Or perhaps there is a magical force-field on the
Chad-Sudan border? The reason why refugees feel safer in Chad is
because of an arbitrary, man-made, and man-malleable border. On one
side of the border you don't have to have to ask the permission of the
Sudanese government to help Sudanese citizens. Sudan̢۪s power is
limited outside of its borders because other nations do have the
resources to stop Khartoum̢۪s aggression, and will act if Khartoum
steps too far outside of its box.
So let̢۪s consider moving the border if it will help to deliver the
resources that will end the suffering. Let̢۪s allow the people of
western Sudan enter into formal alliances, buy their own weapons, and
regulate the crossing of their own borders without interference from
Khartoum. You are right, secession will not instantly fix the problems
in Darfur, but it will allow the process of deterrence to stabilize the
situation. Maybe the best we can hope for is a Darfur-Khartoum
relationship along the lines of the present Uganda-Sudan relationship,
but that would be a hell of a lot better than the situation now.
I agree with most of what you say here, but who is going to step up if
Khartoum steps too far? The US? The French? Some African peacekeeping
contingent? The mighty Chadian army? Nobody is going to get involved,
and if they do it will be in the most limited way possible. If the
border provides some sort of security for the refugees, it fails to
provide a barrier to the Janjaweed, who have crossed it in search of
people to kill. They've also been accompanied by Sudanese Army types.
Why the world doesn't see this as a violation of Chad's sovereign
rights when they're willing to respect Sudan's is beyond me. Which, to
my mind, also means that by erecting another border, another arbitrary
line in the proverbial sand and making a country out of Darfur, isn't
going to keep Bashir out. You argue that this would be a deterrent. I
think it would only provoke.
Finally, I think you have your cause and effect reversed when you
say "southern secession has been a major stumbling block in getting the
accords signed in the first place". That is like saying the major
stumbling block to an Israeli-Palestinian peace is the Israel's
insistence on its right to exist as a separate state
I think you misunderstood me. In a peace deal, most things are
negotiable and there are some things that aren't. Just ask Arafat: a
few years back, he had everything he wanted except for Jerusalem and he
walked away. There are dealbreakers. While you consider southern
secession to be one, it's just my opinion, but frankly, I'm very
surprised and pleased the referendum was included in the peace deal,
and not just left by the wayside completely to keep the north happy. It
easily could have been. If the US and others hadn't pushed for it, I
doubt it would have been on the table, and honestly, I'll be surprised
if the north actually lets the referendum happen six years from
whenever they get everything signed. To me, Bashir seems a bit too
pragmatic to let it all slip away without a fight. I hope I'm being
overly pessimistic.

Posted by: Kathy at 04:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2122 words, total size 12 kb.

Ahhhh. Krauthammer shows us that

Ahhhh.

Krauthammer
shows us that swearing can be indicative of a creative mind, rather
than just a lazy one. Mom---read this one. We shall discuss this later.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

I must admit that one

I must admit that one of the highlights of writing this blog is that I
get to indulge in my obsession with all things Google. I love that
search engine. It's so random, so anonymous, and just so chock-a-block
full of information, it gives me shivers. It's like a card catalogue of
the world. The fun part about Googling is the clicking: all that
information, right at your fingertips: it's the height of instant
gratification. For me, however, the best part about Google is the
anonymity it affords; because no one could possibly know it was you
who clicked, right? Google is the wall behind which you hide; it's the
messenger you, as the King and the commander of legions, send out to
scout for information on troop movements. But unlike a general in
battle, Google gives you this feeling of anonymity because so many
people use it...how could anyone possibly know it was you who typed in the phrase Janet Jackson's Nipple Ring?
There may be only one or two generals in a battle, but loads of people
want to know what Miss Jackson wears on her tittie. You're safe, you
think, from the world's knowledge of your prurient interests. I hate to
be a killjoy, but unless you're a hacker who knows how to cloak
themselves, you should probably know that anonymity on the web is a
myth. While the sheer numbers of certain, specifically phrased, search
inquiries will shield you from scrutiny, you should probably know that
if your search is more specific and well defined, and you make your way
to a website, like mine, more than once, odds are someone will notice.
(And I know I will now get slammed with people googling for that
specific phrase---it's part of my point, eh? Never mind that I could
use a traffic surge. Pay attention!)
I've had a referral log mystery brewing for over a month now, and since
I found yet another reference to this mystery in the logs this morning,
I feel I should share. I named a certain individual from my youth in this post.
I will not name him again, lest I add more fuel to the flames, but it's
been been very interesting. Ever since, someone's been finding their
way here on a regular basis by Googling this individual's name. A
couple of times a week I find evidence in the referral logs of this
person's presence. I find this funny. At first there were more than a
few references, from different ISP's and even one email
reference---where someone had put the link in an email and the
recipient had found their way from that. Since then the interest has
narrowed itself down into one reference: same ISP, same Google entry. I
can't help but be curious about it.
While I do know that someone is doing this, I don't know who, precisely, is doing it or why.
There are a few clues that lead me, inexorably, to certain conclusions
regarding the who. One of the ISP's that visited here was a company
from Nebraska: our shared home state and, according to another link on
Google, the place where said individual still resides and works,
providing that information is up-to-date. Another clue is that every
single time his name is in the referral logs, it's been spelled
correctly. Is this a big deal? you ask. Well, to a certain extent. When
I wrote the post, I vaguely remembered that there are two "t's" in
their name. It's easy to forget because it's not phonetical. I also
looked up his dad, who is a scholar of some renown and has plenty of
links in the Google cache, and his name has been misspelled too many
times to count---and all of them have dropped the extra "t." But in my
referral logs? It's never been mispelled. So, all of this leads
me---in all my Miss Marple-ish glory---to believe its someone close to
him, if not the guy himself, that's Googling their way here. Someone in
Nebraska who knows how to correctly spell his last name. If it's the
guy, then he's getting here via a vanity search, which is funny in its
own right. But if it's not him, then who is it? A girlfriend? A
wife? A boyfriend? (I don't discriminate.) His parents (if it is---HI!
I hope everything's well with you!), siblings, friends, business
associates? It could be absolutely anyone, but it's probably someone he
knows. It's fun to wonder about it. I must admit, the thought has
crossed my mind that it might be him and he's obsessing over past
mistakes and is wondering how to make it up to me. But I doubt it. Yet,
by wondering about the fun bits, I also have to wonder if this lurker
thinks I'm waging some sort of war against this individual, where my
pen is my sword. That they keep coming back here for evidence of my
hatred of this individual. That they are just waiting for me to goof so
they might run to court to get a restraining order. Farfetched, I know,
but wierder things have happened. Well, said she to the lurker, if
that's the case, you can stop. I don't hate this person anymore. I
haven't thought about him in years and the only reason I did was
because of that survey. While it is
one of my regrets, it's not like I'm still harping on this almost
twenty years later, and I've sworn a blood oath to get even. It's just
one of those things I wished I would have had the courage to do because
I can see now where it might have saved me grief way back when. That's
all. Nothing more, nothing less. And it was a harmless regret
to have posted about. One that I could easily post on a public website
that wouldn't be announcing my business to the world. I may publish an
awful lot here, but I'm not about to go about airing my real
regrets on a blog: that's never going to happen. If, by chance, I
happened to run into the guy nowadays, I wouldn't bother with it. I
might even be friendly to him, depending upon how nice he was to me,
but I don't know. It would depend upon the situation, but the last
thing I would ever do is smack him for hurts sustained ages ago. It's
just not who I am. Which I suppose, if one wanted to look at the
situation with the long angle lens, perhaps I shouldn't have that
regret as a result.
Whatever the reason this lurker keeps coming here, I'm assuming this
person will automatically stop coming here once they read this post,
but I hope they don't. What I would prefer is for them to muster up the
courage to email me and let me know who they are so the mystery is
solved. One final note if the lurker happens to be the individual I
named: drop me an email and say "hi" for chrissakes. It's not going to
kill you to be friendly. My bark is definitely worse than my bite. I
promise.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1207 words, total size 7 kb.

Back in my heady days

Back in my heady days as poli sci major, one of the first precepts I
learned about the world is that in the absence of the rule of law, you
have anarchy. Of course, the word anarchy brings to mind images reminiscent of Escape from New York
and the one-eyed, yet fierce Snake Pliskin. A land devoid of control
until someone smells the power vacuum and takes over. As you get older,
you learn that anarchy takes many forms: you needn't resort to a
walled-in New York to prove your point. Neither is the rule of law
always just. You could use Robert Mugabe's government as an
example---just because he heads the legally recognized government of
Zimbabwe does not mean he is in control and is resorting to a just rule
of law. Currently, there is just as much anarchy in Zimababwe as if
there were no government at all. Anarchy, as I said, takes many forms.
As does the rule of law. But when you have a just rule of law,
isn't that sweet? The media seems to be glossing over the enormity of
what happened on Monday, and what happened today. An occupying power
handed over the keys to their own kingdom to a new government, that
might or might not be booted from power in the upcoming elections, and
they brought the former leader of their country before the bar for an
arraignment. Now, think about that for a minute; think about how Hitler
blew his own brains out rather than face defeat at the hands of the
Allied powers; think about how Mussolini found himself at the end of a
partisan rope. Saddam Hussein is going to have a trial
during which he will be allowed to defend himself. He very well might
still end up at the end of a rope when all is said and done, but he
will have the opportunity that Mussolini didn't receive, that Hitler
didn't want to happen---the right to justify his actions, to explain
himself. That says something rather large in the scheme of things about
our inclinations as human beings and how far they have progressed, no
matter what the media might say or whichever disgruntled minority
Iraqis they might talk to.
Say what you will about preemptive invasions, ignoring the collective
will of the UN and so on and so forth. None of these things are
admirable, I hate to say, even though they were expedient. Yet the
simple fact that the United States CPA handed over the keys to the
Iraqi government, and that their first act is to bring to justice the
man who made so many suffer for so long, says a great deal about how
powerful the rule of law is. And how very far from anarchy Iraq
actually is.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 477 words, total size 3 kb.