Well, now that one of the two quadrennial exercises in wretched excess has ended, it's time to look back and consider how everything worked out. I think, in the spirit of the Modern Olympics (Higher, Faster, More Expensive), I should present my own medal winners.
Herewith:
The Bronze - Goes to Samsung of India, which is now running television ads featuring Indian Medallists - from the Sydney Olympics. The ads wish them success in their quest for gold in Athens. It is to be hoped that the athletes did not schedule their Athenaid using Samsung's calendar. After looking at their medal results (one, silver), perhaps they did. If they show up next week, perhaps they can stage a sort of Mini-Games. Just for Samsung (of India).
The Silver - To the Director of the Greek Olympic Committee.
For the aplomb with which he assures us that the 2004 Olympics will turn a profit wigthin a very few years, as money pours in from lease income from the many fine venues created for the Games. I guess there is profit to be made from swim meets at the Natatorium. And then, the Velodrome is pretty sure to be a real cash cow.
Now for The Gold! - The Gold goes to the Greek Minister of Finance. For his clarity of thought in pointing out that the Olympics will cause an immediate improvement in the Greek national budget: for Next Year; because there won't be any Olympic Games next year. This means an immediate savings of around two or three billion dollars, which is what the country has been spending yearly for the last several years. A total (guesstimated at around thirteen bazillion US$) which approximately equals the annual GDP of Greece.
Sadly, the other Quadrennial Wretched Excess is nowhere near its end. It's barely begun in fact. It is scheduled to finish on November 2, or as soon thereafter as we can manage. However, since the 2000 Presidential Election is only now being laid to rest (a necessity, so that we can focus on this year's election), it might be time to start worrying about the schedule for the current Celebration of Democracy.
And be sure to keep a paper record of your vote.
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Friday, August 27, 2004
The Bill of Rights,a new Interpretation
I read that New York Supreme Court Justice Jaqueline Silberman ruled that the people can't assemble in the park because "It would hurt the grass."
I guess the language below doesn't impress the good Justice very much:
The Bill of Rights
"These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the 'Bill of Rights.'
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
...(From the National Archives)
It impresses me though, a lot. Perhaps because I'm old fashioned. They didn't split infinitives in those days! Or maybe because I think the government really is supposed to come from the consent of the governed. I don't know.
Jaquy also says security for the gathering can't be guaranteed. She doesn't seem to worry about that with regard to the Republican National Convention, where a President sworn to do all in his power to harm the American People will be nominated for re-election. Talk about a security risk!
It also seems wrong to me that, apparently, cows have rights superior to the people. Talk about hurting the grass; take a look at the state of the grass in places where cattle are gathered into feed lots (Harris Ranch, along I-5 in California comes odoriforously to mind). If cattle are allowed to peaceably assemble, why are people forbidden to do the same? Perhaps the cattle are Republicans.
(Apologies for "odoriforously", sometimes a word just begs to be used!)
I guess the language below doesn't impress the good Justice very much:
The Bill of Rights
"These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the 'Bill of Rights.'
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
...(From the National Archives)
It impresses me though, a lot. Perhaps because I'm old fashioned. They didn't split infinitives in those days! Or maybe because I think the government really is supposed to come from the consent of the governed. I don't know.
Jaquy also says security for the gathering can't be guaranteed. She doesn't seem to worry about that with regard to the Republican National Convention, where a President sworn to do all in his power to harm the American People will be nominated for re-election. Talk about a security risk!
It also seems wrong to me that, apparently, cows have rights superior to the people. Talk about hurting the grass; take a look at the state of the grass in places where cattle are gathered into feed lots (Harris Ranch, along I-5 in California comes odoriforously to mind). If cattle are allowed to peaceably assemble, why are people forbidden to do the same? Perhaps the cattle are Republicans.
(Apologies for "odoriforously", sometimes a word just begs to be used!)
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Searching for Bobby Fisher
I feel ever so much safer now that the notorious chess terrorist Bobby Fisher is to be returned in irons to the United States. His career as a rogue chessplayer is now over. Never again will he terrorize the Balkans with his Ruy Lopez. His capture must be a great relief to Tom Ridge , too. He can now rest easier at night, knowing he has done his job well, and made good use of the tax dollars he has been entrusted with.
Now, if we can just get that Charlie Jenkins army deserter guy, and punish him for having spent the last 39 years in North Korea, living the easy life in that gardenlike nation. I am sure that with enough time, effort, and money, the U.S. Army can manage to take custody of him and return him, also, to justice in the U.S.A.
Now, if we can just get that Charlie Jenkins army deserter guy, and punish him for having spent the last 39 years in North Korea, living the easy life in that gardenlike nation. I am sure that with enough time, effort, and money, the U.S. Army can manage to take custody of him and return him, also, to justice in the U.S.A.
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Lose the Nuance, Please!
According to a number of pundits, The Question of The Debates, for John Kerry, is going to be "What would you have done differently in Iraq?" So far, he has been pretty vague with his responses to this. It's not surprising; this is a complicated situation, and needs to be considered with respect to a rapidly changing environment. As an actual thinking man, Senator Kerry can be expected to respond accordingly, talking about things that are, that aren't, that might be.
A nuanced answer, in other words.
Bad Idea!
Remember, George Bush won a lot of votes, and became President (not, mind you, entirely because of the votes), by reciting simple answers to complicated questions. It appears very much as if the American Voter wants a simpleton for its president. Perhaps that's true. I hope it isn't.
Anyway, when The Question is asked, I hope Senator Kerry adopts the simple approach taken by George Bush, and simply says: "I wouldn't do what you did, Mr. President; I wouldn't go off half-cocked." Thus Sen. Kerry can both appear a little John Wayneish, and at the same time completely divorce himself from the President's disastrous approach to foreign affairs.
Without seeming to be "sensitive" or "nuanced".
Also, importantly for the future, should he have to make presidential decisions regarding Iraq, he won't have committed himself to some inappropriate course.
Bottom line, Senator Kerry, KISS!
A nuanced answer, in other words.
Bad Idea!
Remember, George Bush won a lot of votes, and became President (not, mind you, entirely because of the votes), by reciting simple answers to complicated questions. It appears very much as if the American Voter wants a simpleton for its president. Perhaps that's true. I hope it isn't.
Anyway, when The Question is asked, I hope Senator Kerry adopts the simple approach taken by George Bush, and simply says: "I wouldn't do what you did, Mr. President; I wouldn't go off half-cocked." Thus Sen. Kerry can both appear a little John Wayneish, and at the same time completely divorce himself from the President's disastrous approach to foreign affairs.
Without seeming to be "sensitive" or "nuanced".
Also, importantly for the future, should he have to make presidential decisions regarding Iraq, he won't have committed himself to some inappropriate course.
Bottom line, Senator Kerry, KISS!
Monday, August 23, 2004
Each time, we say it can never get any worse...
... than this.
And, four years later, it does!
It begins to look as though this years version of the Presidential Sweepstakes will be decided pretty much on the basis of what people believe about what John Kerry did, and in what manner he did it, in Vietnam, in a different time, in a different place, in a different world. The current debate might be called mud-slinging, but it really isn't. Its more like a spitting contest: Did not! - Did So! - You're a Liar! - You're Another!... Absolutely no attention to where we are now, what we need to be doing now, what needs our attention now. Nothing about the Other Candidate whatsoever. Nothing about "a referendum on the President's performance."
It's really sort of interesting, in a multiple-car-crash sort of a way. Lets spend all our attention on an irrelevancy, and let our impressions of a long past event, and the claims and counterclaims the candidates make about the event, the centerpiece of the presidential campaign. Use an old issue as a surrogate for todays issues that no one really wants to try to campaign on anyway. Trade an uncertain response to a past event for an uncertain response to current events.
It might not make any difference to the outcome anyway.
That's what bothers me, I think.
And, four years later, it does!
It begins to look as though this years version of the Presidential Sweepstakes will be decided pretty much on the basis of what people believe about what John Kerry did, and in what manner he did it, in Vietnam, in a different time, in a different place, in a different world. The current debate might be called mud-slinging, but it really isn't. Its more like a spitting contest: Did not! - Did So! - You're a Liar! - You're Another!... Absolutely no attention to where we are now, what we need to be doing now, what needs our attention now. Nothing about the Other Candidate whatsoever. Nothing about "a referendum on the President's performance."
It's really sort of interesting, in a multiple-car-crash sort of a way. Lets spend all our attention on an irrelevancy, and let our impressions of a long past event, and the claims and counterclaims the candidates make about the event, the centerpiece of the presidential campaign. Use an old issue as a surrogate for todays issues that no one really wants to try to campaign on anyway. Trade an uncertain response to a past event for an uncertain response to current events.
It might not make any difference to the outcome anyway.
That's what bothers me, I think.
Thursday, August 12, 2004
What an amazing man...
...is Paul Wolfowitz! Amazing in that the taxpayers of America are still paying his salary! That is, however, a paltry sum compared to the billions of dollars his Iraq venture is costing us.
Now, having completed his demonstration project in the use of naked force in Iraq(They'll Welcome us! They'll Cheer Us! They'll Throw Flowers At Us!), Wolfowitz is resurrecting another idea from the days of empire: hire bandits as mercenaries. Now, this has worked pretty well over the millenia. A lot of empires have had a lot of success in getting bands of armed men to do their dirty work for them. Of course, it has often wound up being a bad thing. As in Rome, where the Vandals eventually decided to go for the Goose instead of settling for the Golden Egg. They sacked Rome, when they'd been hired to protect it.
We, too, have on occasion tried to use 'militias' to help us out. We don't seem to have the knack, however, like the English and the French and the Germans and Spanish(to a lesser degree) had a few centuries ago. Our experience hiring the Khmer Rouge to clean up after us after we had bombed Cambodia into chaos is one example. Heck, we hired the Taliban to fight the Soviet Union! That little foray has wound up costing us a bundle of money, a lot of lives, and the heartbreak of September 11. Then there is Chalabi and Associates. They told us they could run Iraq for us, if we paid them enough. Somehow, that didn't work out either.
No, given our track record at hiring surrogates to do our fighting for us, I think we should tell Mr. Wolfowitz "Thanks, but no thanks."
Now, having completed his demonstration project in the use of naked force in Iraq(They'll Welcome us! They'll Cheer Us! They'll Throw Flowers At Us!), Wolfowitz is resurrecting another idea from the days of empire: hire bandits as mercenaries. Now, this has worked pretty well over the millenia. A lot of empires have had a lot of success in getting bands of armed men to do their dirty work for them. Of course, it has often wound up being a bad thing. As in Rome, where the Vandals eventually decided to go for the Goose instead of settling for the Golden Egg. They sacked Rome, when they'd been hired to protect it.
We, too, have on occasion tried to use 'militias' to help us out. We don't seem to have the knack, however, like the English and the French and the Germans and Spanish(to a lesser degree) had a few centuries ago. Our experience hiring the Khmer Rouge to clean up after us after we had bombed Cambodia into chaos is one example. Heck, we hired the Taliban to fight the Soviet Union! That little foray has wound up costing us a bundle of money, a lot of lives, and the heartbreak of September 11. Then there is Chalabi and Associates. They told us they could run Iraq for us, if we paid them enough. Somehow, that didn't work out either.
No, given our track record at hiring surrogates to do our fighting for us, I think we should tell Mr. Wolfowitz "Thanks, but no thanks."
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Wht the @#$% is going on?
So, according to the latest news in the War on Terrorism, so called, "United States authorities" refuse to allow German courts to question prisoners held in U.S. prisons, because it might lead to "critical secret information being divulged." It is not even allowed to confirm-or-deny if a particular individual is even a prisoner. So much for Habeas Corpus.
On the other hand, the name of the man (Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan, to wit) who was cooperating with the CIA by collecting information directly from al Quaeda (a terrorist organization, I believe) was given to the New York Times by the National Security Adviser of the United States!
Incredible!
Could the identity of this man, a (now former) focal point of al Quaeda intelligence, be a less valuable resource than people who have been in jail for the last two years?
One of the most frequently cited rules the U.S. government has for deciding what information shall be classified is: "No information shall be classified simply for the purpose of avoiding embarrassment on the part of the government, or of any individual."
If I were a member of this government, at this point in time I'd probably be frantic to prevent people from learning how badly I'd screwed up the entire episode of
Captured Enemy Combatants - a neologism that eerily reminds one of the fabulous Captured Enemy Documents of the Vietnam war.
A more maladroit war on terrorism would be difficult to imagine.
On the other hand, the name of the man (Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan, to wit) who was cooperating with the CIA by collecting information directly from al Quaeda (a terrorist organization, I believe) was given to the New York Times by the National Security Adviser of the United States!
Incredible!
Could the identity of this man, a (now former) focal point of al Quaeda intelligence, be a less valuable resource than people who have been in jail for the last two years?
One of the most frequently cited rules the U.S. government has for deciding what information shall be classified is: "No information shall be classified simply for the purpose of avoiding embarrassment on the part of the government, or of any individual."
If I were a member of this government, at this point in time I'd probably be frantic to prevent people from learning how badly I'd screwed up the entire episode of
Captured Enemy Combatants - a neologism that eerily reminds one of the fabulous Captured Enemy Documents of the Vietnam war.
A more maladroit war on terrorism would be difficult to imagine.
Saturday, August 07, 2004
This time, I believe the President
President Bush's latest malapropism puts me in mind of a story in the Golden Ass of Apuleius, where there's a relevant conversation between two travellers.
Traveller 1: "In olden times, when new rulers came to power, they were required to swear an oath to do all in their power to harm the people, but they don't do it anymore."
T2: "You mean they don't do all they can to hurt the people anymore?"
T1: "Oh, no, they still do that; they just don't swear that oath anymore."
I guess our president is regressing to olden times.
Traveller 1: "In olden times, when new rulers came to power, they were required to swear an oath to do all in their power to harm the people, but they don't do it anymore."
T2: "You mean they don't do all they can to hurt the people anymore?"
T1: "Oh, no, they still do that; they just don't swear that oath anymore."
I guess our president is regressing to olden times.
Thursday, August 05, 2004
How Productivity Software Saved the Day
I have spent the last several days in a kind of limbo. Or, if you prefer, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Its a sort of penance for having done something the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs didn't like. Anyway, I've been walking a lot, rubbernecking, dodging motos and beggars (I notice that the Geckoes are active in the daytime too, here). I've also been watching a lot of teevee in the heat of the day. I just saw Shakespeare in Love earlier today. It really is a good movie, I am happy to report. The thing that got me to thinking though was the last scene, where Shakespeare is beginning to pen Twelfth Night.
Now, I have several computers, not counting the one I am currently typing on. This one is in an internet cafe next door to my hotel. Costs r2000/hour (50 cents). My primary computer, despite being a well-aged five years, is fully loaded with Productivity Software. With my computer I can Process Words; I can Spread Sheets; I can Base Data, in many wonderful ways. I can even Point with Power. Isn't the modern world amazing!
My point? Will Shakespeare wrote 55 plays, and a number of sonnets (78 is a number that comes to mind, but it's probably wrong), and the only productivity software he had was a blotter. Or perhaps they still used sand to blot the ink on the paper back at the beginning of the 17th century. I don't really know. At 55 plays, Master Will is approximately ummm, 55 plays ahead of my production. So much for Word Processors, Spell Checkers, Grammar Checkers, Plot Outliners, and all the assorted canned writing aids of today. Of course, I am no Shakespeare, you might say. You are correct. In fact, there are very few such. One is the correct count, I believe. Still, there are lots of other people in history, recent times, and today, who have created rather prodigious bodies of intellectual work. I haven't heard of any who can be said to have had their productivity improved by Productivity Software.
Of course, without such software, I wouldn't be writing this, so that's something, I guess.
The only other example of the utility of Productivity Software I can think of immediately is that when my secretary (this was in the early '80's) came into possession of a Word Processor, the monthly report she submitted from my group to the main office grew in a few months from a seven page document, on average, to a seventy page document, also on average. She stopped typing, and started cutting-pasting-inserting-overtyping. Nothing ever got taken out.
Sort of like the tax laws.
Oh: everything has been smoothed over with the Thai Ministry of etc., so I am returning to Bangkok tomorrow. All has been forgiven.
Now, I have several computers, not counting the one I am currently typing on. This one is in an internet cafe next door to my hotel. Costs r2000/hour (50 cents). My primary computer, despite being a well-aged five years, is fully loaded with Productivity Software. With my computer I can Process Words; I can Spread Sheets; I can Base Data, in many wonderful ways. I can even Point with Power. Isn't the modern world amazing!
My point? Will Shakespeare wrote 55 plays, and a number of sonnets (78 is a number that comes to mind, but it's probably wrong), and the only productivity software he had was a blotter. Or perhaps they still used sand to blot the ink on the paper back at the beginning of the 17th century. I don't really know. At 55 plays, Master Will is approximately ummm, 55 plays ahead of my production. So much for Word Processors, Spell Checkers, Grammar Checkers, Plot Outliners, and all the assorted canned writing aids of today. Of course, I am no Shakespeare, you might say. You are correct. In fact, there are very few such. One is the correct count, I believe. Still, there are lots of other people in history, recent times, and today, who have created rather prodigious bodies of intellectual work. I haven't heard of any who can be said to have had their productivity improved by Productivity Software.
Of course, without such software, I wouldn't be writing this, so that's something, I guess.
The only other example of the utility of Productivity Software I can think of immediately is that when my secretary (this was in the early '80's) came into possession of a Word Processor, the monthly report she submitted from my group to the main office grew in a few months from a seven page document, on average, to a seventy page document, also on average. She stopped typing, and started cutting-pasting-inserting-overtyping. Nothing ever got taken out.
Sort of like the tax laws.
Oh: everything has been smoothed over with the Thai Ministry of etc., so I am returning to Bangkok tomorrow. All has been forgiven.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
