home | archives | bio | stories | poetry | links | guestbook | message board
previous | archives index | next

December 2004

December 31, 2004

In years past I used to have an annual New Year's Eve party that lasted all night and was attended by all of my closest friends. It started when I was in junior high school, so it obviously wasn't a drinking party (although there was drinking in later years), but it was always (for twenty years straight) a role-playing gaming adventure through a Dungeons & Dragons scenario, tournament style. We started on the afternoon of New Year's Eve day and played continuously until we finished the scenario (usually a full module) sometime the next morning. Then we'd crash, wake up late in the afternoon, have a big brunch, talk a bit, and then gradually wind down as everyone went home. It was a big deal for me and was a high point for me every year. Unfortunately it ended the year that I had my breakdown - not because I didn't want (and even need) to hold it, but because the people I would normally have invited had either abandoned me or simply were unable (unwilling) to come. It was a huge disappointment for me, and New Year's has been bittersweet for me ever since.

For the last four years, ever since that last failed attempt in 2000, I have decided that I will do some gaming one way or another, and I have each year played a role-playing game on my computer on New Year's Eve and into the wee hours of New Year's day. I've played Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Dungeon Siege, and Neverwinter Nights in previous years, but this year I didn't have a new type of role-playing game to play (I'd already played through Shadows of Undrentide and Hordes of the Underdark earlier in the year), so I decided to play Diablo II, a fantastic game by Blizzard that I've loved for years. Diablo II is sort of a combination of a role-playing computer game and a first-person shooter, and it's always been full of great graphics and great gameplay. The thing about Diablo II is that I've never been able to kill Diablo himself, the major enemy at the end of the game. He just simply whipped my ass every time. I'd even bought the expansion for Diablo II, Lord of Destruction, and wanted to get to play it (which continued to be impossible since the whole expansion starts on after you've killed Diablo. I've gone back a few times over the past couple of years, sort of half-heartedly, and I've built my characters up stronger and more powerful, hoping to be able to whip Diablo.

I dug in early and started from where I'd left off, and I feel right back into loving the game and kicking some ass. When I finally got up to Diablo I actually killed him! I was almost surreal, but the triumph was very excellent. I wasted no time and plunged ahead into the expansion, seeking to find and destroy the last of the three prime evils (having destroyed Mephisto and Diablo earlier and now hunting down Baal). The new game levels were very different and very challenging, but the new power I had gained from a few new character levels and some cool new items (plus some new strategies on my part) made me quite a badass. I was playing a Necromancer, a spell caster who can raise the dead and cast curses, and I was able to gather an army of fire golems, skeleton warriors, and skeletal mages (a total of 42 of us all together, and my small army was able to command some powerful whupass! I made my way quickly through one area after another until I came upon Baal himself. The enemy creatures he sent against me were quite powerful and nearly killed me, and it's a miracle they didn't, but I was able to play cautiously enough to survive and win against all opposition. I played 'til pretty late tonight, but I finally managed to reach Baal himself and kill him, thus completing the whole game (although now I can play the whole game again with this same character but at a higher level of difficulty). I didn't expect to complete the whole game so soon (heck, I didn't even know if I could manage to beat Diablo yet), but I've won where I hadn't been able to before, and the feeling of satisfaction is very wonderful - quite rewarding.

It's been a great way to see out the old year and ring in the new - just the way I used to feel about my old New Year's Eves. Kick ass.

Posted at 12:29 AM

December 30, 2004

I have been so incredibly tired the last few days that I've been very lethargic, moving very slowly and pretty much getting absolutely nothing at all done until late afternoon. Part of it's due to waking up in the middle of the night and not going back to sleep right away, staying up for a half hour or two or three hours instead before I can go back to sleep. The bigger part of it, though, is, I think, psychological - I have so much still to do with getting these grad school apps done before my classes resume that it's very daunting. I've gotten just about everything else done that I've wanted to get done over break (or at least I feel fairly sure that I'll have those things accomplished by the end of break), but I have yet to put appreciable time into the grad school stuff. With everything else out of the way, I have to fill out those apps and all of the supplemental forms and write all of the various essays for each school, and I have to do a good bit of work on the stories I want to use as my writing samples, the main one of which isn't even posted on this site because it has needed such major reworking (although I think that, with appropriate changes, it will actually be the best thing I've got as a stand-alone short story).

So there's a lot to do and it's staring me in the face now, and I'd be lying if I didn't say I'd rather just not have that to do and could just relax, visit Toledo or play some computer games or call some friends. I'd really like to just kick back and enjoy, but there isn't really enough time. If I can just kick my ass and get going on these apps then I could make some headway and be less overwhelmed. Hopefully I'll make such progress soon, but with tomorrow being New Year's Eve, I have my doubts. I'll keep you posted, though.

Posted at 4:20 AM

December 29, 2004

I read an article about how conservative students at America's colleges are trying to do the typical conservative thing (their agenda, if you will) and try to make it seem that everyone who doesn't advocate their particular way of thinking is a liberal who is "out to get them" and threatens their freedom. It's a ploy that has worked incredibly well for conservatives over the last 25 years, and it shouldn't be surprising that it has trickled down from politics, media, and religion into college classrooms. It only takes seeing a meeting of Young Republicans at any college campus, spreading lies and whining about their abuses, to see how prevalent this situation is.

The problem here is not that liberal professors are forcing their ideas down the throats of conservatives or that those professors are giving out lower grades for those students who don't tow the line. The problem in the intransigence of these conservative students (the same problem seen with conservative adults) that they won't even give someone a chance to speak an idea that doesn't fit with their own worldview. It's one thing to listen to someone with different ideas, question those ideas directly, and then make an informed decision to disagree with those opinions, based on the facts presented, but conservatives don't even want to hear the other point of view. They feel that their views are the only views and all other concepts are wrong. This sort of thinking is what led to the Dark Ages after centuries of enlightened thinking in Greece and Rome. Blind faith and bullheadedness may give conservatives some sense of comfort, but it more often than not also avoids clear factual evidence to the contrary.

Let's consider some of the "horrors" that have been imposed upon the conservative students noted in this article. Incoming students were upset that they were expected to read a book about the Quran, the holy book of Islam. The students claimed that this requirement "offended their Christian beliefs." First of all, they certainly could have chosen not to read the book if they so desired. Even if it was "required", it wasn't part of a course. BGSU, my school, requires incoming freshman to read a number of books but most of them don't - and it doesn't matter because the books are only used to spur discussion in orientation meetings. More importantly, though, it bothers me that these students would use their Christian beliefs as a reason to not try to learn. Reading the Quran won't make them Islamic, not unless their Christian beliefs are incredibly weak, and they weren't even being asked to read the Quran itself, just a book about the Quran. Christians are often quick to discredit other religions, but how fair is that when they don't even have an informed opinion? The conservatives in this case are unwilling to even hear a difference of opinion from their base belief system, and I've got news for them - college is all about challenging your base beliefs and expanding your mind and your understanding of the world. If you can't deal with that then you don't deserve to be their. Or at least you deserve to get bad grades.

I suspect that the whole bad grading issue is simply a matter of the intransigence of these conservative students to be open to different ideas. Having been in college for a while myself, I hear these arguments all of the time, and they aren't between liberal professors and conservative students, their between students in the same class, some unflinchingly conservative and others who are more open-minded (not necessarily liberal, but willing to entertain other ideas than those they know). Invariably in these classroom arguments the conservatives refuse to even listen to differing opinions and, worst of all, can not cite any evidence to oppose the contrasting views, even when those who support that contrasting view have offered citation after citation of textual evidence or proven scientific fact. The conservatives just furrow their brows, square their shoulders, and say, "Well you're wrong. That's not what I believe." If these same conservative students are making these same types of arguments in their essays then it's no wonder they're getting bad grades. It's not because they are standing by their conservative ideology, it's because they aren't supporting their arguments, and any college professor who gets a paper like that should indeed grade them poorly.

College is about scholarly knowledge not about beliefs or ideologies. There's no reason that college students shouldn't be able to maintain and build upon both, but you can't expect to do well in college if you aren't willing to learn, sometimes learning stuff you don't like to think about or don't agree with. Conservatives need to stop their bitching and moaning and just study and try to understand what's being said.

Here's the article I've been writing about:

Conservative students, liberal profs
Latest fight pits teachers against pupils

(AP) -- At the University of North Carolina, three incoming freshmen sue over a reading assignment they say offends their Christian beliefs.

In Colorado and Indiana, a national conservative group publicizes student allegations of left-wing bias by professors. Faculty get hate mail and are pictured in mock "wanted" posters; at least one college says a teacher received a death threat.

And at Columbia University in New York, a documentary film alleging that teachers intimidate students who support Israel draws the attention of administrators.

The three episodes differ in important ways, but all touch on an issue of growing prominence on college campuses.

Traditionally, clashes over academic freedom have pitted politicians or administrators against instructors who wanted to express their opinions and teach as they saw fit. But increasingly, it is students who are invoking academic freedom, claiming biased professors are violating their right to a classroom free from indoctrination.

In many ways, the trend echoes past campus conflicts -- but turns them around. Once, it was liberal campus activists who cited the importance of "diversity" in pressing their agendas for curriculum change. Now, conservatives have adopted much of the same language in calling for a greater openness to their viewpoints.

Similarly, academic freedom guidelines have traditionally been cited to protect left-leaning students from punishment for disagreeing with teachers about such issues as American neutrality before World War II and U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Now, those same guidelines are being invoked by conservative students who support the war in Iraq.

To many professors, there's a new and deeply troubling aspect to this latest chapter in the debate over academic freedom: students trying to dictate what they don't want to be taught.

"Even the most contentious or disaffected of students in the '60s or early '70s never really pressed this kind of issue," said Robert O'Neil, former president of the University of Virginia and now director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression.

'It puts a chill in the air'

Those behind the trend call it an antidote to the overwhelming liberal dominance of university faculties. But many educators, while agreeing students should never feel bullied, worry that they just want to avoid exposure to ideas that challenge their core beliefs -- an essential part of education.

Some also fear teachers will shy away from sensitive topics, or fend off criticism by "balancing" their syllabuses with opposing viewpoints, even if they represent inferior scholarship.

"Faculty retrench. They are less willing to discuss contemporary problems and I think everyone loses out," said Joe Losco, a professor of political science at Ball State University in Indiana who has supported two colleagues targeted for alleged bias. "It puts a chill in the air."

Conservatives say a chill is in order.

Prof. George Wolfe of Ball State Univ. was accused of anti-Americanism in his peace studies course.

A recent study by Santa Clara University researcher Daniel Klein estimated that among social science and humanities faculty members nationwide, Democrats outnumber Republicans by at least seven to one; in some fields it's as high as 30 to one. And in the last election, the two employers whose workers contributed the most to Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign were the University of California system and Harvard University.

Many teachers insist personal politics don't affect teaching. But in a recent survey of students at 50 top schools by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a group that has argued there is too little intellectual diversity on campuses, 49 percent reported at least some professors frequently commented on politics in class even if it was outside the subject matter.

Thirty-one percent said they felt there were some courses in which they needed to agree with a professor's political or social views to get a good grade.

Leading the movement is the group Students for Academic Freedom, with chapters on 135 campuses and close ties to David Horowitz, a one-time liberal campus activist turned conservative commentator. The group posts student complaints on its Web site about alleged episodes of grading bias and unbalanced, anti-American propaganda by professors -- often in classes, such as literature, in which it's off-topic.

Instructors "need to make students aware of the spectrum of scholarly opinion," Horowitz said. "You can't get a good education if you're only getting half the story."

Conservatives claim they are discouraged from expressing their views in class, and are even blackballed from graduate school slots and jobs.

"I feel like (faculty) are so disconnected from students that they do these things and they can just get away with them," said Kris Wampler, who recently publicly identified himself as one of the students who sued the University of North Carolina. Now a junior, he objected when all incoming students were assigned to read a book about the Quran before they got to campus.

"A lot of students feel like they're being discriminated against," he said.

Divergent opinions

So far, his and other efforts are having mixed results. At UNC, the students lost their legal case, but the university no longer uses the word "required" in describing the reading program for incoming students (the plaintiffs' main objection).

In Colorado, conservatives withdrew a legislative proposal for an "academic bill of rights" backed by Horowitz, but only after state universities agreed to adopt its principles.

At Ball State, the school's provost sided with Professor George Wolfe after a student published complaints about Wolfe's peace studies course, but the episode has attracted local attention. Horowitz and backers of the academic bill of rights plan to introduce it in the Indiana legislature -- as well as in up to 20 other states.

At Columbia, anguished debate followed the screening of a film by an advocacy group called The David Project that alleges some faculty violate students' rights by using the classroom as a platform for anti-Israeli political propaganda (one Israeli student claims a professor taunted him by asking, "How many Palestinians did you kill?"). Administrators responded this month by setting up a new committee to investigate students complaints.

In the wider debate, both sides cite the guidelines on academic freedom first set out in 1915 by the American Association of University Professors.

The objecting students emphasize the portion calling on teachers to "set forth justly ... the divergent opinions of other investigators." But many teachers note the guidelines also say instructors need not "hide (their) own opinions under a mountain of equivocal verbiage," and that their job is teaching students "to think for themselves."

Horowitz believes the AAUP, which opposes his bill of rights, and liberals in general are now the establishment and have abandoned their commitment to real diversity and student rights.

But critics say Horowitz is pushing a political agenda, not an academic one.

"It's often phrased in the language of academic freedom. That's what's so strange about it," said Ellen Schrecker, a Yeshiva University historian who has written about academic freedom during the McCarthy area. "What they're saying is, 'We want people to reflect our point of view.' "

Horowitz's critics also insist his campaign is getting more attention than it deserves, riling conservative bloggers but attracting little alarm from most students. They insist even most liberal professors give fair grades to conservative students who work hard and support their arguments.

Often, the facts of particular cases are disputed. At Ball State, senior Brett Mock published a detailed account accusing Wolfe of anti-Americanism in a peace studies class and of refusing to tolerate the view that the U.S. invasion of Iraq might have been justified. In a telephone interview, Wolfe vigorously disputed Mock's allegations. He provided copies of a letter of support from other students in the class, and from the provost saying she had found nothing wrong with the course.

Horowitz, who has also criticized Ball State's program, had little sympathy when asked if Wolfe deserved to get hate e-mails from strangers.

"These people are such sissies," he said. "I get hate mail every single day. What can I do about it? It's called the Internet."

Posted at 12:05 AM

December 28, 2004

Temperatures were on the rise today. It actually reached the mid-30s (Fahrenheit), and the slightest, most barely-perceptible amount of snow may even have melted. At this rate we may avoid falling into an ice age. We'll still be stuck with cold and snow for a while, though.

Posted at 12:02 AM

December 27, 2004

I don't know what it is about television anymore, but it seems inevitable that the few times I have the available time and the desire to watch some tv are the times when all the bastards run are reruns and crap. Repeating that horrible Schwarzenegger glad-fest Jingle All the Way constantly for 24 hours was frightening enough, but as it's turned out, the only new movie I saw presented (as in not already broadcast on tv before) was The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle which I knew from reviews sucked bad (and yet I had no concept of how truly bad a movie could really be until I did in fact watch it (and the questions arise as to how anyone could screw up Rocky and Bullwinkle, a classic cartoon, as well as why someone like Jason Alexander would allow himself to even be seen in such a horrible, horrible film)).

All of the tv shows I watch are in repeats or not even on; all of the stock shows that I watch during the daytime aren't even on (even if they were repeats) because the networks have fucked around with their schedules for the holidays. What the hell are they trying to do anyhow - drive people away from having any inclination to turn on the idiot box?

So it's been aggravating. I've just wanted to watch some tv, either directly or as a background thing while I've been doing other stuff, and I've had neither. I just want to have some tv to enjoy a bit each day to relax - not to spend the whole day watching or vegetating in front of - just to relax and wind down. Is that asking so much.

Posted at 12:02 AM

December 26, 2004

I hate how I feel this time of year. It's a struggle to stay level-headed and not get depressed or angry or whatever. The desire to do some completely relaxing activities contrasted against the need to get different things done during this brief respite from school just exacerbates my emotional instability. It's just no end of fun.

"There's no place like hell for the holidays."

Posted at 12:17 AM

December 25, 2004

I finished that game of Civilization III today, and I did indeed get my highest score ever. In fact, I scored nearly double my highest score from my best game ever before that. I have serious doubts about whether the conditions will ever be providential enough for me to match or beat this new high score ever in the future. It doesn't matter, though. It was a nice feeling to see that score.

Other than that it's been a simple day. I talked to my grandma, mother, sister, and niece and nephew and found them all to be pretty happy with their Christmas gifts and Christmas feast. My own meals were fairly simple in comparison, but I did make myself an incredible salad for lunch, and I enjoyed that. I'm getting a craving for some good white chili, though, and I'm not sure where to even get non-beef chili here in Sandusky. I'll figure something out soon, though, I think.

Let me declare emphatically that the choices for tv programming could have been so incredibly much better at any time of the day today. I was able to keep myself amused, but nothing was all that great. I'd have been more content just with the regular Saturday lineup of shows. Oh well. We'll see what tomorrow brings. I've been looking for something to really just watch and vegetate with but instead I've just had to keep moving and do stuff rather than be a couch potato. What fun is that?

Posted at 2:07 AM

December 24, 2004

I made some awesome brownies today as a holiday treat, and I made a fantastic dinner casserole of potatoes, bacon, and chicken in a cheddar cheese sauce. I even started the day great by having had a full nine hours of sleep and still getting up by 9:30. It was a day to relax, enjoy, and sit back. It's a shame that there was nothing but crap on TV, but that still didn't stop me from enjoying myself.

I spent the larger part of the day playing Civilization III and continuing the game I've been playing for a while. I'm up to year 1924, have settled and developed every bit of land on the planet, have a complete series of railroads on every continent and island, and basically have technology that is a century ahead of its time. I'm fairly well convinced that the score I already have, even though I have a lot more to do that will increase the score even more, is still the highest score I've ever had by far - a score I don't know if I could ever hope to achieve again let alone surpass. So I'm happily playing this out to its completion, and hopefully I'll wind it up tomorrow, giving myself a kick-ass high score as a present tomorrow. It's a simple joy, really, but sometimes those are the best.

Posted at 1:03 AM

December 23, 2004

Four to eight foot snow drifts. Does that sound unreal to you?

I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it and had to plow through it myself, but the snowfall and drifting here yesterday and last night was completely insane. I haven't seen so much piled up snow since I was a kid in the 70's (the Blizzard of '78 certainly comes to mind, except that that lasted for days and had even higher drifts (one drift I saw during the Blizzard of '78 literally reached to the underside of a highway overpass)). I spent seemingly the whole day clearing off the sidewalks and driveway, and that was using the snowblower. I can't imagine how many days it would take to have finished if I had to shovel it all by hand. The street is untouched with snow over two feet deep, and I don't expect the road crews to help us out any time soon. From what I understand the whole country is quite buried and even much more major streets than ours haven't been cleared yet. People are stuck at work downtown, unable to get out of their buildings. The Cleveland International Airport and the Toledo Express Airports were both closed most of the day and are only now flying a very minimal number of flights. Schools and businesses across all of northern Ohio are closed. From what I can see on the televised news, Toledo fared much better than us and is semi-functional, but Cleveland is completely shut down, and Sandusky is not doing a whole lot better.

My big hope now is just that it doesn't snow more, at least not for a while. The temperatures are slated to be bitterly cold for the next week, and that means that the snow isn't going to be melting, but if it stays clear out, with no more accumulations of snow, then the road crews may eventually get caught up. I dread the idea that this is a sign of things to come, but I believe this may be the same sort of shit I'll be dealing with all of next semester. Joy.

I did have one bright spot for the day. My grades were posted, and I got 'A's in all of my classes. At least I have that.

Posted at 4:23 PM

December 22, 2004

My grandma is safely at my sister's house in Maryland, and I now have 18 days on my own to try to relax, get grad school apps completed, and mentally and emotionally clean house a bit, somehow achieving some sort of peace.

In the meantime, mother nature has come on with a vengeance, sending constant snowfall to build and build and build. It looks like this will continue for the next couple of days or more, so a good deal of my time will be spent shoveling snow. Yea. Iv not for that I wouldn't mind the snow. It's rather pretty, and I have no intentions of going anywhere for a while, but the sidewalks and stuff need to be clear for the postman and others, and I'm the only guy here to do it. Mores the pity.

Posted at 11:33 PM

December 21, 2004

At last! The truth is beginning to be revealed. If only American journalists had the balls to do the legwork, we might get somewhere at uncovering all of the details. I'm referring to this news article that talks about and links to a BBC special that shows how the practices of the war on terror were begun long ago for the Cold War, fabricated with no factual data by the same men who are screwing us today: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and their faithful cadre of evil geniuses. Read it for yourself:

Hyping Terror For Fun, Profit - And Power
by Thom Hartmann

What if there really was no need for much - or even most - of the Cold War? What if, in fact, the Cold War had been kept alive for two decades based on phony WMD threats?

What if, similarly, the War On Terror was largely a scam, and the administration was hyping it to seem larger-than-life? What if our "enemy" represented a real but relatively small threat posed by rogue and criminal groups well outside the mainstream of Islam? What if that hype was done largely to enhance the power, electability, and stature of George W. Bush and Tony Blair?

And what if the world was to discover the most shocking dimensions of these twin deceits - that the same men promulgated them in the 1970s and today?

It happened.

The myth-shattering event took place in England the first three weeks of October, when the BBC aired a three-hour documentary written and produced by Adam Curtis, titled "The Power of Nightmares." If the emails and phone calls many of us in the US received from friends in the UK - and debate in the pages of publications like The Guardian are any indicator, this was a seismic event, one that may have even provoked a hasty meeting between Blair and Bush a few weeks later.

According to this carefully researched and well-vetted BBC documentary, Richard Nixon, following in the steps of his mentor and former boss Dwight D. Eisenhower, believed it was possible to end the Cold War and eliminate fear from the national psyche. The nation need no longer be afraid of communism or the Soviet Union. Nixon worked out a truce with the Soviets, meeting their demands for safety as well as the US needs for security, and then announced to Americans that they need no longer be afraid.

In 1972, President Richard Nixon returned from the Soviet Union with a treaty worked out by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the beginning of a process Kissinger called "détente." On June 1, 1972, Nixon gave a speech in which he said, "Last Friday, in Moscow, we witnessed the beginning of the end of that era which began in 1945. With this step, we have enhanced the security of both nations. We have begun to reduce the level of fear, by reducing the causes of fear—for our two peoples, and for all peoples in the world."

But Nixon left amid scandal and Ford came in, and Ford's Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) and Chief of Staff (Dick Cheney) believed it was intolerable that Americans might no longer be bound by fear. Without fear, how could Americans be manipulated?

Rumsfeld and Cheney began a concerted effort - first secretly and then openly - to undermine Nixon's treaty for peace and to rebuild the state of fear and, thus, reinstate the Cold War.

And these two men - 1974 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Ford Chief of Staff Dick Cheney - did this by claiming that the Soviets had secret weapons of mass destruction that the president didn't know about, that the CIA didn't know about, that nobody but them knew about. And, they said, because of those weapons, the US must redirect billions of dollars away from domestic programs and instead give the money to defense contractors for whom these two men would one day work.

"The Soviet Union has been busy," Defense Secretary Rumsfeld explained to America in 1976. "They’ve been busy in terms of their level of effort; they’ve been busy in terms of the actual weapons they ’ve been producing; they’ve been busy in terms of expanding production rates; they’ve been busy in terms of expanding their institutional capability to produce additional weapons at additional rates; they’ve been busy in terms of expanding their capability to increasingly improve the sophistication of those weapons. Year after year after year, they’ve been demonstrating that they have steadiness of purpose. They’re purposeful about what they’re doing."

The CIA strongly disagreed, calling Rumsfeld's position a "complete fiction" and pointing out that the Soviet Union was disintegrating from within, could barely afford to feed their own people, and would collapse within a decade or two if simply left alone.

But Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted Americans to believe there was something nefarious going on, something we should be very afraid of. To this end, they convinced President Ford to appoint a commission including their old friend Paul Wolfowitz to prove that the Soviets were up to no good.

According to Curtis' BBC documentary, Wolfowitz's group, known as "Team B," came to the conclusion that the Soviets had developed several terrifying new weapons of mass destruction, featuring a nuclear-armed submarine fleet that used a sonar system that didn't depend on sound and was, thus, undetectable with our current technology.

The BBC's documentarians asked Dr. Anne Cahn of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency during that time, her thoughts on Rumsfeld's, Cheney's, and Wolfowitz's 1976 story of the secret Soviet WMDs. Here's a clip from a transcript of that BBC documentary:

"Dr ANNE CAHN, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 1977-80: They couldn't say that the Soviets had acoustic means of picking up American submarines, because they couldn't find it. So they said, well maybe they have a non-acoustic means of making our submarine fleet vulnerable. But there was no evidence that they had a non-acoustic system. They’re saying, 'we can’t find evidence that they’re doing it the way that everyone thinks they’re doing it, so they must be doing it a different way. We don’t know what that different way is, but they must be doing it.'

"INTERVIEWER (off-camera): Even though there was no evidence.

"CAHN: Even though there was no evidence.

"INTERVIEWER: So they’re saying there, that the fact that the weapon doesn’t exist…

"CAHN: Doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. It just means that we haven’t found it."

The moderator of the BBC documentary then notes:

"What Team B accused the CIA of missing was a hidden and sinister reality in the Soviet Union. Not only were there many secret weapons the CIA hadn’t found, but they were wrong about many of those they could observe, such as the Soviet air defenses. The CIA were convinced that these were in a state of collapse, reflecting the growing economic chaos in the Soviet Union. Team B said that this was actually a cunning deception by the Soviet régime. The air-defense system worked perfectly. But the only evidence they produced to prove this was the official Soviet training manual, which proudly asserted that their air-defense system was fully integrated and functioned flawlessly. The CIA accused Team B of moving into a fantasy world."

Nonetheless, as Melvin Goodman, head of the CIA's Office of Soviet Affairs, 1976-87, noted in the BBC documentary,

"Rumsfeld won that very intense, intense political battle that was waged in Washington in 1975 and 1976. Now, as part of that battle, Rumsfeld and others, people such as Paul Wolfowitz, wanted to get into the CIA. And their mission was to create a much more severe view of the Soviet Union, Soviet intentions, Soviet views about fighting and winning a nuclear war."

Although Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld's assertions of powerful new Soviet WMDs were unproven - they said the lack of proof proved that undetectable weapons existed - they nonetheless used their charges to push for dramatic escalations in military spending to selected defense contractors, a process that continued through the Reagan administration.

But, trillions of dollars and years later, it was proven that they had been wrong all along, and the CIA had been right. Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz lied to America in the 1970s about Soviet WMDs.

Not only do we now know that the Soviets didn't have any new and impressive WMDs, but we also now know that they were, in fact, decaying from within, ripe for collapse any time, regardless of what the US did - just as the CIA (and anybody who visited Soviet states - as I had - during that time could easily predict). The Soviet economic and political system wasn't working, and their military was disintegrating.

As arms-control expert Cahn noted in the documentary of those 1970s claims by Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rumsfeld:

"I would say that all of it was fantasy. I mean, they looked at radars out in Krasnoyarsk and said, 'This is a laser beam weapon,' when in fact it was nothing of the sort. ... And if you go through most of Team B’s specific allegations about weapons systems, and you just examine them one by one, they were all wrong."

"INTERVIEWER: All of them?

"CAHN: All of them.

"INTERVIEWER: Nothing true?

"CAHN: I don’t believe anything in [Wolfowitz's 1977] Team B was really true."

But the neocons said it was true, and organized a group - The Committee on the Present Danger - to promote their worldview. The Committee produced documentaries, publications, and provided guests for national talk shows and news reports. They worked hard to whip up fear and encourage increases in defense spending, particularly for sophisticated weapons systems offered by the defense contractors for whom neocons would later become lobbyists.

And they succeeded in recreating an atmosphere of fear in the United States, and making themselves and their defense contractor friends richer than most of the kingdoms of the world.

The Cold War was good for business, and good for the political power of its advocates, from Rumsfeld to Reagan.

Similarly, according to this documentary, the War On Terror is the same sort of scam, run for many of the same reasons, by the same people. And by hyping it - and then invading Iraq - we may well be bringing into reality terrors and forces that previously existed only on the margins and with very little power to harm us.

Curtis' documentary suggests that the War On Terror is just as much a fiction as were the super-WMDs this same group of neocons said the Soviets had in the 70s. He suggests we've done more to create terror than to fight it. That the risk was really quite minimal (at least until we invaded Iraq), and the terrorists are - like most terrorist groups - simply people on the fringes, rather easily dispatched by their own people. He even points out that Al Qaeda itself was a brand we invented, later adopted by bin Laden because we'd put so many millions into creating worldwide name recognition for it.

Watching "The Terror of Nightmares" is like taking the Red Pill in the movie The Matrix.

It's the story of idealism gone wrong, of ideologies promoted in the US by Leo Strauss and his followers (principally Wolfowitz, Feith, and Pearle), and in the Muslim world by bin Laden's mentor, Ayman Zawahiri. Both sought to create a utopian world through world domination; both believe that the ends justify the means; both are convinced that "the people" must be frightened into embracing religion and nationalism for the greater good of morality and a stable state. Each needs the other in order to hold power.

Whatever your plans are for tonight or tomorrow, clip three hours out of them and take the Red Pill. Get a pair of headphones (the audio is faint), plug them into your computer, and visit an unofficial archive of the Curtis' BBC documentary at the Information Clearing House website. (The third hour of the program, in a more viewable format, is also available here.)

For those who prefer to read things online, an unofficial but complete transcript is on this Belgian site.

But be forewarned: You'll never see political reality - and certainly never hear the words of the Bush or Blair administrations - the same again.

Posted at 11:36 PM

December 20, 2004

Bad.
Bad day.
I've had a bad day.
I've had a bad day.
I've had a bad day.
I've had a bad day.
I've had a bad day.

Also acceptably modified by various adjectives and adverbs ...

I've had a bad fucking day.
I've had a bad, fucking, shitty, rip-somebody's-head-off day.
I've had a bad day, seemingly without end.
I've had a ball-busting bad day in hell.

And sometimes a metaphor says it best ...

I've had a bad day that's like swallowing fire ants and infecting your own testicles with a flesh-eating virus.

It's just been that good.

Posted at 10:39 PM

December 19, 2004

The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals, and 362 to heterosexuals. This doesn't mean God doesn't love heterosexuals, it's just that they need more supervision.

That fact actually has absolutely no connection to any part of my day whatsoever, but I thought it was worth pointing out.

This evening was a nice change of pace, driving to Toledo to grab Steve and go out to dinner at Al Smith's Place and then going to Maxwell's Brew to chat with Mark and Steffan (or maybe it's Stefan ... or Stephan ... or Stephen ... I don't know for sure. I just met him, and I'm going on pronunciation only here). Anyhow, it was a nice change of pace, as I said. Steve and I talked a little politics, as usual, and we talked a bit about his job and my classes, but a lot of the conversation from all four of us was about gaming, with an emphasis on Dungeons & Dragons.

It seems that Mark and Stephan have been playing in a group with Wallace but that they were unceremoniously excluded from the game, and they decided to leave, along with some guy named Robby (whom I've never met). They asked Steve to play (which they both wanted but hadn't had for a while since Steve wouldn't game with Wallace any more), and thus a new gaming group was born. So we talked about their game experiences so far, reminisced about old campaigns we'd been in, and talked about possibly having me join in May after my semester is done. That would be quite nice - a relaxing social get-together that stimulates my imagination and relaxes my mind. Sounds like the perfect thing to liven my sometimes flagging spirits. So I'm looking forward to that. It would be quite cool.

We didn't stay all that long, really. Stefan left after about an hour and a half, at 9:30. Mark followed at about 10:15, and Steve and I decided to leave at about 11:15. I drove Steve home and then headed back to Sandusky, having a pleasant, obstacle-free trip back, and I'm ready for some bedtime just shortly after I upload this Journal entry. It was a nice evening, a good change.

Posted at 1:52 AM

December 18, 2004

I got a full nine hours of sleep again for the first time in a week, and it has made a huge difference. I feel much better than I have for days, and hopefully I'll have a lot more days with full nights of sleep to get me feeling pretty decent by the end of the week.

I spent a lot of time today helping my grandma take care of bills, order flowers to be delivered as holiday gifts, pack for her upcoming trip, and a whole bunch more little tasks in addition to fixing lunch and dinner for her to eat with me. I was able to get her through a lot of things, making her much happier, and I still had time left after that to try to relax upstairs on my own.

Unfortunately there was a complete lack of anything decent on TV, but I was more than happy to dig back into playing the game of Civilization III on my computer that I've been playing for a while. I'm the Egyptians in the game, and it's nearly 1500 AD and I've just finished exploring the whole world. I'm just about to develop railroads; I've settled almost all of the known world; and I'm just about to finish conquering the last of my opponents (I've conquered about a dozen civilizations so far, and I'm just about finished conquering the Aztecs on the continent they have held, leaving only the Japanese who have so far maintained control of their small continent). I think that's pretty good for not even being 1500 AD yet. It's nice, too, because I'm just about done with war, and even though a lot of this game really seems to focus upon war and conquest as a necessity, that is my least favorite part of the game. I'm much more interested in exploring, settling, and developing the civilization. I even really enjoy the aspect of the game where exploring and settling is like a race where each civilization is in a rush to grab the best terrain and resources before the others. That's fun. The warring, while sadly realistic, is to me more of a pain in the ass that drags me away from these other aspects that I like more, but it becomes unavoidable for the most part because the other civilizations are quite warlike. And of course if you want a good score in the game, you simply have to conquer or crush most or all of your opponents. You can win through diplomacy, but you'll never gain a high score that way. That's too bad, too.

In any case, I played Civ III for a while, and that was quite relaxing for me. Tomorrow I want to try to back up the whole computer, so that will be sort of tedious and boring, but it needs to be done. Fortunately I can still relax somewhat around that, and relaxation is certainly a good thing.

Posted at 2:03 AM

December 17, 2004

I cut my SBC phone and DSL bill down by about $13 a month today, just by asking for a better rate, both for the phone service and for the DSL, and I'm pleased. I've been wanting to dump that phone line altogether since I never really use it as a phone (I use my cell phone or my grandma's phone for phone calls, and my own line I keep simply to have the DSL). I would have switched a while ago to cable internet (through our cable tv provider) except that their lowest into rate, even for cable tv subscribers, is $39.99 plus tax, meaning that I would: a) only have saved about $10 a month from what I currently pay, once taxes were included; b) I would have to buy a new cable modem to descramble things, that being about $100 or more dollars (which would eat up any monthly savings I had made in the deal; and c) it would be their lowest price, which means it would give me their lowest service, a pitifully slow version that is certainly better than dial-up but not nearly as good as cable should be. The better plans, with more respectable speed, are $49.99 or $59.99 a month, and I just couldn't see switching to a higher price tag. And of course now that my DSL set-up is even cheaper I certainly will be unlikely to change.

I went to Verizon about a month ago about my cell phone because they had sent me a notice in the mail that a certain extra I was getting (all-coverage insurance on the phone if it's stolen, lost, broken, or dies) was going to be increased by $2 per month. I already felt that I pay too much for my cell phone, and I was pissed off that something that was offered as a fixed rate deal was being increased. So I dropped that insurance altogether, and that cut my Verizon bill down by about $4. So now, between the adjustments to the two phones, I'm paying nearly $20 less per month than I have been for the past couple of years. That's great, although I'll still be paying around $85 a month, and considering it wasn't too long ago that I had a single phone line for calls and dial-up that ran me $20 a month, I still feel like I'm being taken for a bit of a ride.

I also had a great phone call today from Kristina, wishing me holiday cheer and catching me up with the complexities of being a graduate student at Kent State in library science (on a completely unrelated note, the term library science always struck me as funny. What exactly is the science about it? Do their weigh the books to get accurate data? Do they run experiments to try to make fire-retardant dustcovers? Do they work in labs to make white noise devices that will deaden sound in the whole building? Where's the science part?). Grad school sounds like it's pretty demanding, as I expected, and Kristina, I think, is more honest with me about how hard it is that either Sarah or Christiana have been (or maybe they deal with it better, I don't know). But it sounds like tons of work with incredibly demanding, unappreciative professors. OH goodie! Such wonderful things to look forward to.

But fortunately Kristina and I talked about more than school. We're both done with our Fall semesters and have a few weeks away, so we're glad to forget about it a bit. Kristina still has the shopping madness to do for the holidays, and I pity her for that, but she also is making great plans for flying here and there around the country to visit friends and crash with them while she follows the upcoming U2 tour as much as she can afford to. Kristina is a huge U2 fan and could easily spend herself into oblivion just to see every concert they give. Fortunately she has a good sense of self-restraint and a good appreciation for how much it sucks to be poor, so she'll limit herself a bit. Still, she'll be at far more U2 shows than the vast majority of people, and that's great because they'll make her as happy as can be. And heck, if you can't use money toward things to make you happy then why work for more than it takes for your subsistence needs?

Anyhow, we talked about a bunch of stuff, and that was great. Kristina's always fun to talk to, but we each have gotten caught up in the anxieties of schoolwork this past semester, so we've been keeping in touch but more sporadically than we either probably would have liked. It's great to catch up on things and know that she's doing so well, though, and it is always nice to feel like I've got people who care as I draw closer to the emotionally stressful holidays.

The phone was very good to me today - very good.

Posted at 12:16 AM

December 16, 2004

I was up until well after 3 AM wrapping presents and carefully packing boxes with toys and stuff to go to my sister's family (specifically my niece and nephew) and to send to New Zealand for Chris (along with a long letter and news articles and poems and stuff). Then I had to get up at 7:30 AM to get showered up and take my grandma to one doctor's appointment after another. Once I was finally back at the house I took care of other tasks, and by about 7 PM I was finally at work on the big project for the day - a long-overdue website update.

The highlight of the update is the addition of fifteen new poems (Baa, Borderline, ... by any other name, [for autumn spectral], Frankly, Funhouse, [I think], Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain, Professor, Ravenous, The Right and Wrongs, Solitary, "Stop that, you'll go blind!", Villain L—, and White Dove), but I've also updated all of the Links pages, and I added a few links here and there as well. That is likely to be the last update for the year and thereby the last update for the close of this site's fourth full year on the net.

The fifth year promised to be the best yet, with new stories and new features being added frequently. Next year will also see a big push on my part to get more exposure for the site and thereby for my poems and stories. We'll see how that works out, but I'm very optimistic about the possibilities.

Posted at 10:55 PM

December 15, 2004

I don't know whether I'm more excited or disappointed about the news that my favorite rock group, Queen, is planning a new tour. Considering they haven't toured in nearly twenty years, and considering that I never got to see them but would have loved to, and considering that I still love their music and listen to one album or another on a regular basis, I'm pumped about the idea that I could see them (and I'm not much for concerts, either. They're just not normally my thing, but Queen is a different matter altogether).

I'm disappointed by this news, though, because all of the members of Queen said, in 1991, right after the death of Freddie Mercury, that there could never be a Queen without Freddie and that, while they would play together as Queen at benefits now and again, the three remaining members of the group would follow their own independent projects and no longer work as Queen. I think that that was a wise call because Freddie is indeed irreplaceable, and the group can never be Queen without him. If Brian May, Roger Taylor, and John Deacon were to get together and form a new band, a band with a different name, I would support them completely, and I'd still be interested in them. I wouldn't even have a problem if they wanted to perform Queen songs on tour in such a new group or even do new versions of their songs on albums within the new group. I could accept that. But there's something about running the show as Queen without Freddie that just seems wrong.

Now I'm sure that Paul Rogers is a great guy and probably a hell of a good musician and singer, but he will still never be Freddie Mercury. I hate to make it sound like I'm laying my problems upon him, because that's not the case. I just don't feel comfortable with the idea.

So I'm torn. I'm psyched about the possibility of finally seeing Queen, but I'm also dreading the possibility of seeing Queen. It's a very weird feeling, believe me.

Here's the article that brought all of this to light, by the way:

Queen rock band plans new tour

LONDON, England (AP) -- The 1970s and '80s rock band Queen is planning a tour next year with guitarist and vocalist Paul Rodgers replacing legendary frontman Freddie Mercury, who died of AIDS in 1991.

Details about what would be the first Queen tour since Mercury's death were being worked out, but it could include shows across Europe beginning this spring, the band's spokesman said.

Rodgers, from 1970s blues band Free, impressed the remaining members of Queen when he joined them for several performances this year.

Rodgers and Queen guitarist Brian May performed Free's hit "All Right Now" at a Royal Albert Hall concert in London to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Fender Stratocaster guitar earlier this year.

May and Queen drummer Roger Taylor then asked Rodgers to stand in for Mercury when the band was featured on a British TV channel's hall of fame program.

In a note on his Web site, May said there was "amazing chemistry" when he played alongside Rodgers, adding: "It seems blindingly obvious that there was something happening here."

The official Queen Fan Club welcomed the promised tour, even though it was not known yet whether the other member of the band, bass player John Deacon, will join it.

Queen's popularity endured throughout the 1980s and its stadium anthems, "We Will Rock You" and "We Are the Champions," were played to packed audiences worldwide.

During the late 1980s, when the band had to give up touring because of Mercury's illness, it reached new fans with fresh recordings such as "The Miracle" and "Innuendo."

Posted at 2:55 AM

December 14, 2004

I found out that I definitely have an 'A' in Pop. Film, and that means that I don't have to take the final later to make up the screw-up last night. Yea! That was seriously good news.

I also started and finished shopping for holiday presents (and birthday presents) for everybody I plan to buy for. It too me from the morning until nearly 9 PM, but I am finished. Now I just have to wrap and pack this stuff to ship it all over the world (literally).

And keeping up my sense of humor, as if I needed my spirits to be lifted any more right now, this column from the Pasadena Weekly is simply hilarious (sadly truthful but hilarious). See for yourself:

A liberal's final wish
Hoping all who made Bush's victory possible will someday share in his conviction, both federal and state

Give me a break — or a big glass of vodka. We've gone from shock and awe to shuck and jive, and Captain Quagmire ran the table anyway. Now he's got the White House, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the military and a chip on his shoulder he's calling a mandate. I don't know about you, but I'm getting a Republican haircut just to blend in.

For four years it's been one big all-you-can-eat buffet for the corporations, and now they're coming back for more. Go ahead, you marvelous bastards! Rip out all the trees, pave the beaches, build 12-lane freeways, plunder the treasury, destroy our future. Cook the books, rig elections, pack the courts, hand the regulatory agencies over to fascist maniacs. Invade more countries, declare code red, invoke martial law, and keep going until your oil-sucking exploits kick off a nuclear exchange.

By God (or Diebold), you've earned it. You've hoodwinked the evangelicals. You've threatened the journalists. You've built a propaganda machine and disguised it as a legitimate cable news network. You've used it to force-feed every right wing loon from Ashcroft to Zell down our throats until they began to sound normal. You've used phony government alerts to manipulate the trailer park patriots, and you've dismantled the separation of church and state to the point where the Stars and Stripes represents the anti-choice, fuel-guzzling, homophobic God of the blow-dried televangelists.

Yes, Mr. President, it's your great and lasting legacy. You've brought brazen deceit into the political mainstream. In fact, it wouldn't be too much to say you are the single most credible Republican since Dan Quayle sprayed that grey stuff on his sideburns. And now you say you want my support. To assume you are being sincere is in itself a faith-based initiative, but in the spirit of fleeting bipartisanship, I'll play along.

I pledge allegiance to the united corporations of America. For the next four years I will continue wearing my Nike shirt, my Adidas shoes, and my Old Navy logo pullover. While eating my corn flakes, if I find that I'm chewing on a coupon, I'll suppress the thought that the corporations aren't content to have turned me into a human billboard, they want me eating their advertising, too.

I'll do my best to suppress my inner environmentalist. When my conscience says things like, "Hey! Isn't that bioengineered food you are eating?" I will assure myself that the radioactive waste in my dental work will kill off any cooties.

I will overlook the fact that you've done more damage to feminism than 20 years of gangster rap, and I will ignore the fear that we will soon need Sherpa guides to reach the ruins of anything resembling such relics as an eight-hour work day. I will do my best to ignore the feeling that I've fallen into a Fellini movie by ignoring the eyes of the old TV news anchors who, caught up in TV's sudden shift to the right, seem to be trying to tell us something they aren't allowed to say on the air. I will suppress my suspicion that you are part of the same gang of psychopaths who brought us Enron, Vietnam and Dallas '63, and I will shelve my theory that the best way to make a dent in terrorism is to invade the state of Texas. And I promise not to move to Mexico, which seems pointless anyway since it appears to be moving to me.

Those are my concessions, Mr. President. Now I need a few from you. I've found it hard to feel proud of America since you first took office. I was among the millions who were appalled when you morphed the home of democracy into a rogue nation endorsing the kind of preemptive war that characterized the Nazis. I don't want a Cowboy-in-Chief roaming the world in search of convenient villains on which to impose gunslinger justice. There's a place for that in an episode of "Gunsmoke," but in today's world we have the United Nations to resolve international disputes. It took World War II and the deaths of 53 million people to create that institution; it seems a waste to disregard that so you can play Judge Roy Bean.

Your West of the Pecos diplomacy has created a trickle-down paranoia that is ruining the neighborhood. We are becoming a dog-eat-dog, everyman-for-himself nation of fair-weather friends. That's what happens when the PATRIOT Act makes enemies of librarians and when the Pentagon begins probing our emails. There are other ways to track Al Qaeda without having to know everything about me going back to those X-ray specs I ordered from the back of Boys' Life.

I know we don't agree. After all, I am a liberal — by your definition, a godless feminist heathen running an abortion clinic in my kitchen and a gay wedding chapel in my garage. Hey, in today's economy, a guy's gotta make a buck. But rest assured that I am no atheist. I know there must be a God. With you in the White House, if there wasn't, we'd surely be dead by now.

So, on behalf of liberals everywhere, and with all the Viagra of progressive thought I can muster, I extend this salute. I offer it with my best wishes and the sincere hope that all who made your victory possible will someday share your deep convictions, both federal and state.

Posted at 12:30 AM

December 13, 2004

Life is strange sometimes.

I've spent the largest part of the weekend, including just about all of today, studying for my Popular Film exam tonight. I left Sandusky a bit early, just to be safe and make sure that I didn't have any problems, and even though there was some snowfall, strong gusting winds, and idiots who see a drop of snow and drive only 25 MPH on 55 MPH roads, I still made it with good time. I had about a half hour left by the time I got to the right building and settled into the lounge, pulled out my notes, and studied one last time. I felt fairly good about my preparation, and about ten minutes before exam time I gathered up my things and made my way to class.

There had been another exam finishing in our classroom when I had first arrived in the building, so I checked through the window to make sure the room was clear. I saw a professor I didn't recognize, so I just about turned around to wait, but then I noticed that the students were my classmates. I made my way in, and the professor was in the middle of some explanation, the thrust of which apparently was that my professor was unable to make it and had the exams with him out of town. I got a seat, listened further, and the professor started explaining again as more of us had arrived. Apparently the snowshowers that had been falling as I had driven in, which had been worse near Sandusky but got better as I traveled west toward Bowling Green, had apparently just been the trailing edge of a massive snowstorm that hit Cleveland in a major whiteout. As luck would have it, my professor was still in Cleveland and was unable to get out in time to give us our exam.

Once I got over my shock, I came to understand that our professor will e.mail us tomorrow with our grades in the class thus far and then we can decide if we would like to: a) take our exam tomorrow during another film class who our professor would be giving their exam, b) take our exam Wednesday night with yet another film class who would be taking their exam, or c) take the grade we currently have and skip the exam, getting the grade that we had earned so far as our final grade for the class. By my best estimates I have about a 100% combined point total for all of my papers and tests so far, so guess which option I suspect I'll be taking? It actually took me a moment to actually believe that it was all true and that I could get an 'A' in the class without taking the exam, but I happily let it sink in.

The return trip to Sandusky was far less pleasant. The whiteout snowstorm that had hit Cleveland was still going, and its trailing edge had dug deeper into Sandusky and inland as far as Fremont, making about half of my journey more complicated. The roads were a bit slick, and the winds blew a bit roughly, but nothing was so bad as the people driving at such incredibly slow paces that I could have probably walked back to Sandusky faster.

Still, I did get back, and my classes are now all over. That in itself makes up for most anything else. It's been a tiring night, though. I'll be looking forward to some good sleep. If only I could sleep in tomorrow.

Posted at 12:18 AM

December 12, 2004

I am more than sick of studying at this point, but I still have one exam to go, tomorrow evening, and I don't feel confident enough yet about how well I've memorized all that I need to. This last exam will be for Pop Film, and it should be easy as exams go, but there's so much stuff to know about different types of shots and schools of thought and techniques and various genres and ideas about each of the films we've watched. I imagine I'll be fine, but I'll still be studying more pretty much up until the exam is handed to me. At least that's less than a day away now. I look forward to being done.

Posted at 10:10 PM

December 11, 2004

Ahhh. Nine straight hours of sleep. So nice. It should always be like this.

Posted at 12:48 AM

December 10, 2004

Yea! The Myth exam is done, and I think that I aced it (meaning that I think I got everything right plus all of the extra credit stuff, so I could/should hopefully have 115/100 points. That should finalize an 'A' for that class. Now I just have one more, the Pop. Film exam on Monday night.

Let's rock.

Posted at 1:50 AM

December 9, 2004

I have a big exam in Myth tomorrow, and I've been studying for that today and will certainly still study a good bit more up until the very last minute, so that's been largely on my mind.

Today's good news, however, is that I found out today that I got an 'A' on my last paper for Modern Latin America and thereby an 'A' for the class. My professor even went so far as to tell me that based on everything I'd don in class he thinks I should pursue a graduate degree in history and that he'd be willing to help if I was interested. That's not the direction I plan to go with things, but it was cool to hear nonetheless.

Now I've just got the exam tomorrow and another Monday, and then I'm officially through with this semester. Monday can't come too soon.

Posted at 9:42 PM

December 8, 2004

It's amazing what I can do with only a bit over four hours of sleep. I've spent the last few days working on three big final projects that were due today, and I was up at 4 AM to keep working after very little sleep. The good news is that my Final Poetry Portfolio, my Poetry Reading Journal, and my final paper for my Modern Latina America class are all done and turned in. That's quite a relief. There's still more to do before I'm done for the semester, but with these completed, the worst is over.

I could probably babble on about how tired I am, but instead I want to share this column from the Washington Post. It's fucking hilarious, and I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

Eternally Rumsfeld

Rumsfeld faced calls for his resignation this summer over the abuses at the Abu Grab military prison in Iraq. Republicans close to the White House said the decision to retain him was driven by the calculation that replacing him would appear to be a concession that the administration made mistakes in Iraq.

Moreover, some Republicans have speculated that Rumsfeld wanted to stay on with the hope that security conditions in Iraq would improve, leaving him with a better legacy.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 8, 2016 -- President-elect George P. Bush announced today that he would reappoint Donald Rumsfeld to another term as secretary of defense. Rumsfeld has served in that position since he was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2001. After serving two terms in George W. Bush's administration, Rumsfeld served an additional two terms in the subsequent administration of President Job Bush. His 16 consecutive years heading the Pentagon is the longest uninterrupted tenure of any defense secretary, and that doesn't include the nearly two years he served in that post under President Gerald Ford. Rumsfeld is 84.

Sources close to the president-elect say that failing to reappoint Rumsfeld would be taken as a criticism of his uncle, former president George W. Bush, whose decision to invade Iraq in the spring of 2003 has bogged down U.S. forces there in a bloody and ongoing conflict that has lasted nearly 14 years. "George W. is mighty proud of independent Kurdistan," said one former official who is close to the Bush family. "He may have regrets about the Islamic Theocratic Republic of Basra, particularly since they got the bomb, and the PTCZWBOS [Permanent Temporary Curfew Zone Where Baghdad Once Stood], but he'll never admit it."

Rumsfeld does not plan on serving all four years of President-elect Bush's term, one Defense Department official said today. "As soon as things turn up, the moment the Green Zone is secured, he's out of there."

One figure in the outgoing and incoming administrations who argued strongly for Rumsfeld's retention was Vice President-elect Dick Cheney, who first worked with Rumsfeld in the Ford administration. Cheney himself is about to begin his fifth term as vice president, a record-breaking tenure bought about in part by the decision of his cardiologists in 2008 that he could not safely be moved from the vice president's office.

Both Presidents George W. Bush and Job Bush periodically found themselves compelled to mount strenuous defenses of Rumsfeld's lengthy tenure. In a memorable 2006 news conference, a visibly exasperated President George W. Bush argued that wartime presidents had traditionally stuck with their commanders for the full duration of their conflicts. "Lincoln didn't dump McClellan, and I'm not dumping Rumsfeld," the president declared, leading the White House press office to issue its now-famous clarification that the Civil War had actually ended in 1862.

Rumsfeld's most recent term was marked by controversy over the extended tours of duty that many of the U.S. soldiers and marines in Iraq have been compelled to serve. With enlistments in the armed services down to a trickle, and with Congress unable to find the votes to pass the so-called Sensenbrenner Plan to staff the armed services with unpaid, undocumented immigrants, many of the front-line U.S. soldiers in Iraq have been serving there since 2004, their terms of enlistment repeatedly extended by Rumsfeld's order.

Since the Mutiny of 2009 Defense Department officials have been concerned that bringing the "colonial army" home would risk infecting stateside troops with a crisis of morale. "We're fighting low morale in Iraq," one general said, "so we don't have to fight it here at home."

Rumsfeld's decision to remain at the Pentagon's helm may not have been dictated entirely by his desire to stay until the PTCZWBOS is secured. "Don took a bath when the dollar tanked back in 2005," one prominent Republican said, "and hasn't done all that well since the dollar was pegged to the yuan. In the absence of Social Security, he can't afford to quit."

Posted at 12:14 AM

December 7, 2004

It is indeed the end of an era. IBM has sold off its personal computer business to Chinese computer manufacturer Lenovo. While the move does make good business sense for IBM (allowing them to focus solely on their software, client, and server aspects, where they make good money, unlike their PC business which hasn't done very well for years), it is still a sad day for someone like me who saw the first IBM PCs hit the market and set the standards for how the vast majority of personal computers would be made from then on. In fact with the exception of Apple Computer, who continues to do its own thing now as then, despite what everyone else is doing, the entire computer industry made great strides to make their computers "IBM compatible" in the seventies.

I remember that my first computer was an Atari 400, and I had that in 1979. I had a great time with that computer, but I only had programs made by Atari. I had probably 50 programs, and I loved them, but they were rather basic. At least I was doing better than I was at school using the crappy TRS-80 models from Radio Shack(Tandy).

My next computer was a Sanyo MBC-5550-C, a gray box of a computer that claimed to be 30% IBM compatible. If it was even 5% IBM compatible I would have been amazed because that thing wouldn't run practically anybody's software. Still, that Sanyo had the best, most incredible graphics software I have ever seen, and I still think it was a brilliant design. Again I was doing better than at school where I was using a Wang punch-card computer and terminals on a Digital mini-computer system.

I got rid of the Sanyo fairly quickly (which is amazing considering I was buying these computers by myself with what money I could scrape together from working), and I bought and Epson Equity I computer. That machine, white and fairly stylish for its age, was much better than I'd had before. It was nearly 100% IBM PC compatible, and I could run all sorts of programs on it. In fact, believe it or not, one of the last programs I got before ditching that computer was the first version of Microsoft Windows, something that practically bore no resemblance to what Windows has become.

Fortunately for me I started working at Kinko's shortly after that and had my first introduction to Apple computers (other than the Apple LISAs that my high school had for the math department), and I spent every spare minute I had playing with the Apple Macintosh SEs and later SE30s, amazed at all they could do and how easy and fun it was.

I've been an Apple fanatic ever since, but I still remember the origins of everything, and I feel a lot of respect for IBM for being able to make such a solid, respected personal computer that they were able to get literally dozens upon dozens of manufacturers to adopt their standards of hardware, components, and software. Sadly it set the stage for the ugly dominance of Microsoft that we see today, but it also sparked a great deal of standardization and quality improvement in the industry, and I feel quite sure that IBM made it possible for personal computers to become a nearly essential part of every household. So kudos to IBM, and I'll be saying a sad farewell to their part in the personal computer industry (although they're still largely involved - they're the main manufacturer of PowerPC chips for Apple now). As is always true, there's nothing so constant as change.

Here's the article that brought all this on:

IBM sells PC business for $1.25B
China's Lenovo to become world's No. 3 manufacturer; Big Blue to focus on services, software.

BEIJING (Reuters) - China's largest personal computer maker, Lenovo Group Ltd., said Wednesday it is buying control of IBM's PC-making business for $1.25 billion, capping the U.S. tech giant's gradual withdrawal from the business it helped pioneer in 1981.

The agreement, which forms the world's third largest PC business, calls for Lenovo to pay IBM $650 million in cash, $600 million in Lenovo Group common stock and for Lenovo to assume $500 million in net balance sheet liabilities from IBM.

IBM (Research) will hold an 18.9 percent stake in Lenovo.

Based on 2003 results, the companies will have annual revenue of $12 billion on sales of 11.9 million units, according to a news release.

The deal closes an era for the world's largest computer company and kicks off a new age in which China's top PC maker Lenovo steps onto the world stage as a major PC brand and IBM partner.

The sale of IBM's PC desktop and notebook computer lines frees the company to focus on higher-margin businesses such as computer services, software, more powerful server computers, and storage as well as computer chips, analysts have said.

For Lenovo, which is battling intense competition in its home market, the deal with the world's largest computer company marks a breakthrough in its efforts to build its business overseas. It would also make the company part of a small but growing group of Chinese manufacturers buying overseas brands.

Lenovo will take ownership of IBM "Think" trademark family, including its ThinkPad notebook brand and its ThinkCenter desktop line. Lenovo will also buy out IBM's interest in its joint venture with Lenovo rival Great Wall Technology, China's No. 2 PC maker.
Lenovo will hire 10,000 IBM PC employees -- including about 2,300 in the United States -- mostly product designers, marketers and sales specialists -- and some 7,700 elsewhere, principally in China, where IBM operates a manufacturing joint venture.

In a news release, IBM and Lenovo said the new company will be based in New York, with principal operations in Beijing and Raleigh, N.C.

Posted at 10:38 PM

December 6, 2004

Such a sad night. Tonight was the last time I'll be able to stare at Andrew. True, I still have an exam to take in my Film class, but I'll be quite preoccupied with that. So tonight was the last. What a shame - he's so cute.

The sad truth is that I'm giving up hope that I'll ever do more than stare. It's not like I'm hoping for guys that are super hot by all standards; I like guys who, like Andrew, are beautiful to me but I'm sure wouldn't turn the heads of very many other people. Even so, I'm not turning any of their heads, and I'm not finding myself getting close enough to any of them to even become friends, let alone something more. I'm strangely accepting of all of this, and that makes me wonder what's going on. I mean, really I should expect that this would all just depress me quite a bit. Instead I'm more just disappointed and sad in a simple way. Maybe it's just because I'm so wrapped up with the impending projects for school and my mind just hasn't really had time to think about this, but I still feel like it hasn't had (and isn't going to have) the same sort of debilitating depressive effect on me I've had in the past. I guess that's good, sort of, but it's weird, too.

But for me weird is normal, so what does any of that mean anyhow?

Posted at 12:22 AM

December 5, 2004

It's no comfort, considering the situation being discussed, but I'm glad to see that there are others who feel similar to me, see the same problems I do, and share the same fears. It's good to know that there is indeed only about half of the United States that doesn't have a clue or doesn't give a damn. Here's the article I'm referring to, from the San Francisco Chronicle:

A Fundamental Change In America
VIEW FROM THE LEFT

We'll let the customers do most of the work this week. Following is an e-mail from a reader smack in the middle of "Bush Country":

"I read your column about Bush's four more years. I agree with all of it. I, too, lament the scuttling of the greatest successful experiment in human free spirit. But I think there is another side to it.

"Regardless of what Mr. Bush did in office or to get reelected, he did not vote himself in. And irrespective of the rigging that probably did happen in Ohio, Florida and elsewhere, roughly 59 million people voted for him. Alarmingly, many of these voted based on their faith.

"That is scary. They said in essence that while there was looting of taxpayer money to repay campaign contributors, an untruly reasoned war killing thousands abroad and allowing millions to starve at home, and robbing millions more of health care, it was consistent with their faith-based value system.

"This is the scary part. I saw this growing up in Pakistan. It is worse to see it repeated here in the U.S.

"Bush will go in four years and perhaps some other neo-con will take his place. But if the nation has taught itself to think like religious fanatics, that damage will take years to repair."
I've omitted the e-mailer's name, to save him from the lynch mobs. When I asked permission to use his letter, he added the following:

"My point in all of this is that beyond anything one or more politicians are doing, there is a sea change in the way a majority of Americans think.

"There is a reversion to fundamentalist way of thinking, which, among other things, means that morality is defined narrowly (usually something to do with sex -- somebody else's).

"In this way of thinking, as long as you prevent abortions and keep gays from getting married, all the other horrors are okay. I think this is a major change in the way the nation thinks, probably on the level of the one that brought about the Civil War. Unfortunately, it seems the Confederates are winning this time."

The e-mailer obviously is appalled by what's happening to his country, but a lot of people who e-mail me are delighted by it. My conservative critics (may their tribe increase) keep telling me to wake up and smell the coffee, that their kind of me-first thinking is the new American way, and I'd better learn to live with it.

Maybe they're right. Even if they are, I can't bring myself to stoop to their level. I'll continue to believe what I was taught as a youngster: that strength should be used to protect, not to exploit.

A second e-mailer, who said he was from Europe, had an unusual point of view: He is a liberal happy that Bush won reelection. Read on:

"As I am against the American empire, I am happy that George W. Bush won the election, whatever frauds there might have been.

"The U.S. seems to be going the same way the U.S.S.R. did. If, hopefully Bush will be followed by someone like Perle or Cheney, it will not take very long.

"It is only sad to see all the ones tortured and murdered in Iraq, Palestine and other places, but hopefully the U.S. regime will attack Iran and Syria, so the empire can fall in less then a decade."

One letter from a guy who grew up in Pakistan, another from a European. I could put them with the several I've received from Germans who compare modern America with Germany in the 1930s.

A final thought this week concerns the millionaires and multimillionaires in Congress. It's hard to get an accurate count on these things -- they really don't want us to know how wealthy they are -- but it appears there are at least 40 senators worth more than a million and more than 120 House members.

Their financial disclosure forms, which don't include primary residences, give such a wide range of options that it's hard to nail down exactly what these people are worth in dollars.

To give you a hint as to how much some of them hedge, Rep. Tom DeLay, the super wheeler-dealer from Texas, claimed earlier this year that he had, at most, $166,000 in assets. If you believe that, you and I must talk bridges: I have a couple of fine ones for sale here in the Bay Area.

DeLay, incidentally, is a Republican, but congressional wealth crosses party lines.

Both major presidential candidates this year, and their running mates, are multimillionaires.

Here in California, if you want to knock on Sen. Dianne Feinstein's front door, you can try the gingerbread house on Presidio Terrace, or you might have to go to the Sierra, to Aspen, or to Hawaii. Like John Kerry, the lady has houses everywhere; I'd guess I missed a few.

Feinstein admits to at least $26 million in assets. Barbara Boxer, our other senator, is a downright pauper according to her financial disclosures, worth only slightly more than $1.1 million.

San Francisco's representative in the House, minority leader Nancy Pelosi, brings up the average a mite; she and her husband admit to holdings worth at least $22.8 million.

Other well-off California legislators include Rep. Darrell Issa, a Republican worth more than $112 million, and Rep. Jane Harmon, a Democrat worth (with her husband) at least $160 million.

My favorite rich legislator is Rep. Kathleen Harris, former secretary of state of Florida. Harris, a Republican, has done well for herself. She admits to assets of at least $11 million.

I have nothing against rich people. Very often the very rich dedicate themselves to public service. They can do that. They don't have to pound away day after day to eke out a living.

But I have to wonder if it's healthy for a democracy to be so overrepresented by wealthy people.

If, as my e-mailers suggest, American democracy is going down the tubes, is there a connection between that and the economic gap separating most of us from those who make our laws?

I don't know. What do you think?

Posted at 9:06 PM

December 4, 2004

Wow. Covers of REO Speedwagon songs really suck, don't they?

Posted at 2:17 AM

December 3, 2004

Yahoo! (not the trademarked search engine and internet service but the exclamation of exultation) I can't begin to tell you how great it is to be able to get to Bowling Green or get back in only a few minutes more than an hour. I've cut off, it certainly seems, even more than a half hour from my trip each way now that I don't have to follow all of those bullshit detours. Not only am I able to get here and there quicker and easier, but cheaper, too. Less distance means less gas consumption, and with gasoline prices being as they are, running an average of $1.89 per gallon and sometimes topping $2.00, it's a big deal to be able to cut back on mileage and save cash.

So the trip is much more satisfying, and while I haven't had any rainy or snowy days to show me if the new tires are giving me better control, as I'm hoping, I do feel like the new tires are giving me solid control and less road noise than I had before. All of that makes the trip more pleasant, and it's a good thing for days like today because I was certainly getting to feel tremendously depressed by the time I had walked to my car and was ready to head back from classes.

I imagine the anxiety from all of the final projects that are due, combined with the depression I always get this time of year, just ganged up on me, and with everything set for depression it doesn't take a whole lot to set me off. The drive back to Sandusky, being without detours now, certainly kept me from completely getting upset, and I was able to spend the evening watching tv and playing a little Civilization III on the computer. It certainly wasn't the way I had planned to spend the evening, and it did nothing to get anything accomplished for my final class projects, but it was time well-spent because I feel much better now and much more able to cope and stay sane. It's ridiculous that I have to actually work at not getting depressed, but that's just how it is. Tomorrow, though, it's back to the books and digging deep into work. There's much to do, and as much as I'd like to rest, time simply won't allow for it.

Posted at 12:26 AM

December 2, 2004

I didn't mention it yesterday, but the last of the construction on Route 6 is finally completed and I was able to drive straight through to Bowling Green. Not only is it a simpler drive with less turns and stops, but it takes a full half hour less, each way, than what I've been doing for months due to detours. This is, in fact, the first time in over eight months that I haven't had to detour around one section or another of construction on my trip there and back. It had truly sucked.

It may not seem like a big thing, but following these various outlandish detours, a new one starting as soon as a previous detour is just about finished - hell, it's been driving me nuts. So as much as I'm thrilled to gain back a whole extra hour a day that won't be wasted for nothing, I'm even more excited about just being able to drive simply without all of the frustrations. Of course it'll start snowing any day so I'll get slowed down all over again, but for a few days at least I can enjoy clear roads in a fairly direct route to college.

Posted at 12:59 AM

December 1, 2004

The only real surprise to me in this recent news is that ABC wasn't as conservatively bigoted as CBS and NBC. I think it's worth pointing out that the media, the Republicans, and all of the churches who waged the massive push for defense of marriage anti-gay amendments all said that they were just trying to maintain marriage as it had been, that they weren't in any way bigoted or hateful toward homosexuals and that they believed that gay people should be accepted and have equal rights, just not marriage.

Well, now that the votes have been cast the obvious truth comes out. First there's this bullshit by the networks to refuse to air advertisements that invite gay people and everyone else to join a certain church. At the same time as this some idiots in Alabama are trying to make it illegal for homosexuality to be mentioned at all, not merely removing it from possible classroom teaching but not even allowing gay-themed novels or plays anywhere in the whole state. And while both of those things were going on, Ohio, in its infinite stupidity, is trying to make it illegal for partner benefits to be allowed for gay people in any job. It's a good thing that these people aren't bigoted and want gays to have equal rights or they'd be shoving us into cattle cars and driving us to the gas chambers. Or maybe that's next? Who knows. Everything's fair game in Fuhrer Bush's "compassionate conservative" fascist America.

CBS, NBC Ban Church Ad Inviting Gays
Networks wont run church spot featuring gay couple; say ad runs contrary to company policies.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The CBS and NBC Networks have refused to run an ad by a liberal church promoting the acceptance of people regardless of sexual orientation because the networks believe the ad is advocacy advertising.

The 30-second spot, run by the United Church of Christ, features two muscle-bound bouncers standing outside a church, selecting people who could attend service and those who could not. Among those kept out are two males who appear to be a couple. Written text then appears saying, in part, "Jesus didn't turn people away, neither do we."

"Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples...and the fact that the executive branch has recently proposed a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast," the church quoted CBS as saying.

A CBS spokesman confirmed that the ad was banned, but would not comment directly about the above statement

"It was against our policy of accepting advocacy advertising," said the spokesman.

An NBC spokeswoman said the problem with the ad was not its depiction of same sex couples at church, but its implication that other religions are not open to all people.

"It went against our long-standing policy of not accepting ads that deal with issues public controversy," said the NBC spokeswoman.

"It's ironic that after a political season awash in commercials based on fear and deception by both parties seen on all major networks, an ad with a message of welcome and inclusion would be deemed too controversial," said Rev. John Thomas in the statement.

"We find it disturbing that the networks in question seem to have no problem exploiting gay persons through mindless comedies or titillating dramas, but when it comes to a church's loving welcome of committed gay couples, that's where they draw the line."

NBC couldn't comment on the seeming contradiction by the networks who aired a slew of controversial political ads during this past election but now refuse to air the ad from the United Church of Christ.

The commercial can be viewed at www.stillspeaking.com.

The church says the ad has been accepted on a number of other networks, including ABC Family, BET Discovery, Fox, Hallmark, TBS and TNT.

TBS and TNT are owned by Time Warner, which also owns CNN/Money.

CBS is part of Viacom (Research) while NBC belongs to General Electric.

The Cleveland-based United Church of Christ claims 6,000 congregations with 1.3 million members.

Posted at 12:42 AM

previous | archives index | next
home | archives | bio | stories | poetry | links | guestbook | message board