I got rid of the joke title, but didn't want to go back to "Alchemy for Dummies", since I've been bored with that for a while. That'll still be the URL obviously, but I decided to change the title heading to "Stukas Over Disneylsand", which was inspired by the title track to this Dickies album. At least for now that's what I'm going with, let me know if you like it.

Call me cynical, but this request for auditions for a rhythm guitarist for this band fails to leave me impressed. Note the repeated calls for perfection underneath the crude misspellings of "rhythm" and "label," the imperatives all over the place about their standards of professionalism and lack of anything offered to the crazy jamoke that actually dares apply.

They're holding their auditions in the same place that my band practices - and we're middle aged, sloppy, undedicated, careless, and crass, and we like it that way - and this ad thing tempts me to show up in a mullet wig and pink wifebeater and attempt to shoulder my way into their auditions to play a suck-ass guitar solo that's nothing but an empty run of hammer-ons. Just because someone has to. I probably should cut half the wifebeater in half so my distended dough-belly shows to optimal benefit, and maybe I could put some temporary tattoos of skulls on it to break up the pattern of hair. Just as a point of style.

Oh, the music at their web site isn't bad. Buy their CDs if they ever release any. And maybe our Army of 1,000,000 Daily Satisfied Readers of "Homosexual Incest For Dummies" can all crash these auditions and turn them into a Skynyrd-fest. Do it for Handsome Dick Manitoba (he'd do it for you).

Sip was gracious enough to let me host the sound version of the ASfM Flash on his site. It takes a lot longer to load (I ended up just doing a 'Save Target As...' to see if it worked, since I had no way of monitoring how long it would take by leaving a page open), so be patient if you choose to watch this version. Once you've watched it with sound, it's hard to go back to the original version, but if you have a ghetto internet hook-up like I do you might want to stick with that version. Mostly all you're missing is music (though it's some pretty cool music, if I say so myself, and I think it does add to the cartoon quite a bit), plus like two sound effects.

Anyone who couldn't view either version might want to go to Macromedia's website and download the most recent version of Flash, because I use Flash 8.

It's only temporary, but I can change it if it's bothering anyone. Like if you can't check out the blog at work now or something. It's a semi-inside joke, as a response to recent (usually homophobic) junior high level insults that have been levied at my own little corner of teh Internets.

How do I get one of those? And why am I asking the internet?

Every so often I let slip on this blog that I am hopelessly sappy when it comes to animals. Anyway, I was just taking a walk through a small park near where I live, and a rabbit was sitting right beside the bike trail. I went off trail and walked between the rabbit and the road to keep him from running into traffic, but as I passed I noticed even if I got close he didn't move, except for his breathing. I walked three feet away from him, then a foot, then leaned into pet him, and he didn't flinch even as I rubbed his spine and skull. The only time he moved was when I started walking away he crossed over to the other side of the bike path, then I went back and pet him again. I left there, since there didn't seem like anything I could do unless I was going to pick him up and carry him home, but I think that might traumatize him (though I suspect he may have already been in shock or something, perhaps from a near roadkill experience or something like that). Anyway, there is a four space parking lot right next to where I found him, so I'm thinking of going back with my car to check on him. Anybody have any ideas what I might be able to do for the little guy?

Finding this vid of the Dictators doing a Stooges song almost makes scrolling through listings of a billion "Bush is a dictator" videos worthwhile. Take that, you BDS-infested weenies.

Watch it now!

I originally had a four-song soundtrack for it, but it made Flash freeze up when I tried to preview the movie, so I just took the songs out. I might try to get a version with the songs up later when I have some time. Anyway, it is a bit overly elaborate for that dumb little joke, but it really helped get me acquainted with using Flash so I guess that was all worth it.

Hope you all enjoy it.

After a long wait with no new Angry Stick-figure Man cartoons, I am about half finished with ASfM's first fully-animated cartoon. So far it's coming along pretty well if I do say so myself. It won't be long now, dear readers.

This was forwarded from my dad's uncle

I think the life cycle is all backwards. You should start out dead and get it out of the way. Then you wake up in a nursing home, feeling better every day. You get kicked out for being too healthy, go collect your pension, then, when you start work, you get a gold watch on your first day. You work 40 years until you're young enough to enjoy your retirement. You drink alcohol, you party, you're generally promiscuous and you get ready for High School. You go to primary school, you become a kid, you play, you have no responsibilities, you become a baby, then, you spend your last 9 months floating peacefully with luxuries like central heating, spa, room service on tap, larger quarters everyday, and finally you finish off as an orgasm. I rest my case.

The following blurb accompanies this image, found here:

A duct-tape dress form is quick, cheap, and simple. You'll need a couple of 60-ft. rolls of duct tape, a long tee shirt, and a little plastic wrap. Oh, yes, and someone to wrap you in tape.

Here's my latest Flash animation. I think I'm getting the hang of this. Right now it loops right after the guy with the Stick-Boy shirt hangs his head in shame, which kinda ruins the ending of it a little, so I might put up a fixed version later. If not, you should be able to rewind the animation and turn the loop off through the menu that pops up when you right-click on it. Let me know what what you think.

One more thing, I've been trying to practice how to make my characters more animated in their movements, in case you're wondering why people are just waving their arms around for no reason.

No, I didn't read through all of this. But it's got Bible, it's got numerology, it's got Freemasons, and it's got 9/11! What more could you ask for, except hot guy-on-guy action?

I've been planning a post on the McCain-Feingold, but have been too lazy to actually write it yet.
I'll do that sometime this week. Look for me to use the word "abomination" for the first time!

Anyway, I want to thank my co-bloggers for doing a good job making the blog interesting, and keeping the updates coming, while snuck off to the Kallini forums and speant all my time over there for the last few weeks.

Anyway, I thought this was funny. I went to the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo yesterday, and after I got off the freeway and was almost there I was stopped at a light where a big group of early high school-age goth kids were crossing the road directly in front of us. Near the back of the group were two girls holding hands, and apparently trying to make a big show of it. As they passed in front of my car (I think I finally got that explosion problem fixed), the two girls stared down my passenger and I with this seething "Judge us! I dare you!" look. *sigh* Hopefully theyll get over that (as well as the whole goth/nu metal phase) when they're older. Anyway, I thought it was pretty funny since we could've both gave a shit about them being lesbos. It was the pubescent Lord of Darkness ten feet in front of them, with the overly elaborate scenester get-up, that we were mocking and being judgemental towards. But I guess some people just like to be indignant, reguardless of whether they have something to be indignant about. Anyway, we spotted the same girls in the zoo later, still holding hands. I probably should have walked up to them, and just gave an exaggerated, jaw-hanging, look of shock gawk while pointing directly at them, but I never think of anything cool to do until well after I've passed up the opportunity. Anyway, I thought it was funny.

This explains a lot.

I feel a little dirty after reading it, but the analysis is spot on at Samson Blinded. It's not as Machiavellian as the author would like to think, but it's at least halfway there.

I especially like this one.

Here is the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics.

Here is the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers.

There are some huge similarities, though the Engineering code lists things more as a contract ("Engineers shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering by a person or firm.") and the Journalistic code lists a set of principles ("Journalists should Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media."). There is an enormous legal difference between "shall" and "should;" the latter is touchy-feely, the former is fully legally enforceable. However, while there might be a point to be made about how journalists should have a more binding code here, I really see it as a stylistic, not substantive difference. Let's save that topic for another time.
My point is, if I eventually become an Engineer, I have certain legal privileges that come with extra responsibilities. If I am even a little careless about these responsibilities, I will get reamed for it! Strongly related to this is that it is at least as criminally Fraudulent to falsely represent yourself as a P.E. as it is to falsely represent yourself as an MD. That is a mess of trouble you do not want to be in.
What I see though from the Journalist side (an if anyone out there is more versed in this, please comment) is two things. First, I see a willful misrepresentation. Journalists have established a respect for themselves as professionals, a popular trust of their reporting and an incredibly strong sense of ethics (which I'll talk about another time). However, they have tarnished that reputation and are in danger of losing altogether by allowing non-Journalists to pose as such. The people reporting from Israel for Reuters are not Journalists. Any claim that they are is a direct assault on the fundamental ethical principles of a profession that has clawed its way to respectability. Condoning some pretense that they are Journalists, or in any way unbiased is condoning flagrant, willful and repeated violations of the Code of Ethics that the SPJ has at the very root of its reputation.
Second, I see a willful negligence from those supervisory positions which would have, in my chosen field, resulted in a loss of livelihood and probably jail time. The arrogance involved with continuing to publish Hajj's writing as journalism is staggering, and many of the other stringers aren't much better. If an intern drafts a design for some new widget, he's responsible for avoiding gross negligence, and that's about it. If a Professional Engineer then stamps that design, he is certifying that it was prepared under his control and meets all applicable standards. The P.E., not the intern is the one liable for the results (and incidentally, he is also required to give credit for the work to the intern).

There are 37 subpoints under 4 major directives to the SPJ's code. Three of those major directives were clearly contravened, the fourth arguably so. Of the subpoints, 7 did not apply, 5 (generously!) were respected, and the remaining 25 were clearly contravened.

This happened on someone's watch at Reuters.

I know what would happen if it were my field.

Here is where these quots came from; it's an AP article.
So, real quick analsis of AP writing.

Israeli warplanes and artillery pounded Hezbollah positions Friday in attempts to gain unchallenged command of strategic high ground and disrupt guerrilla rocket attacks across the border. In far north Lebanon, Israeli jets blasted a key bridge to
Syria and killed at least 12 people.

...

But Hezbollah delivered a similar statement to northern Israel with another barrage of more than 150 rockets, it said.

...

U.N. diplomats held out hope that an end could be in sight. Negotiators reported progress on a cease-fire plan — which has been stuck over a timetable for Israeli withdrawal.

So let's look real quick at two of the stylistic elements here:

The first passage does not have any attribution. I'd tend to believe that it's true though, so this is only interesting because the second passage does. I wonder if the AP is backpedalling a bit from a pro Hezbollah position? Much as I'm cheering for Israel here, I don't really want propaganda from them either. I'd really rather have non biased or well sourced news. While I'm at it, I want a pony from Santa.

Also, UN diplomats. I was going to do some analysis for you, but why bother? The important bit is that they are absolutely and entirely irrelevant here, like a city council passing resolutions that buildings will no longer burn, or Berkley, CA declaring itself a nuclear free zone. First, I'm pretty sure that Israel declared war, not the UN, meaning that the UN is not debating the acceptable terms of a ceasefire, they are debating the terms they will find acceptable to suggest for a ceasefire. You know what will happen if Israel doesn't accept though, right? The UN will probably bring out their ultimate weapon: Censure. There's even a possibility that they'll issue a formal warning to Israel, or formally "take notice" of its actions.
They won't actually pass a resolution saying that they'll interven though. That's playing with fire. Look what happened when they did that last time: someone actually backed it up!

Go Israel.

I highly, highly support this test being administered to all aspirants to political office.
Go read.

4 penguins perish in freak Texas truck accident
Octopus unhurt, exotic fish not as lucky en route to temporary home

link is to MSN

Why break a trend? Originally, I was going to make one big post yesterday about a bunch of different things, so I was going to use a bit of "The Walrus and the Carpenter" as the title. Then, I got lazy, and decided to just do two smaller posts. To be clever, I split that stanza into the two titles. See how tht works? Then later, I had more things to say, so I just kept on going through that verse.
Anyway, today's title fits fairly well. I've received through email an essay which claims to be written by one Dr. Vernon Chong. I have neither any way of verifying this nor any reason to doubt it. The essay can stand on its own two feet though.
Dr. Chong was the General in charge of health stuff for the army. He looks like he has a really solid background in medicine, and I don't think they let people be Generals who are entirely ignorant of strategy. Also he has medals from Germany and Brazil. I would really very much like to hear the story of how he earned those.
Anyway though, the Essay:

This WAR is for REAL!
Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII). The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:
* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.
(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist
attacks worldwide).

2. Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

3. Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4. What is the Muslim population of the World?
25%.

5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under thedictatorial leadership of Hitler (who professed to be Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests).(seewww.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm) Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others. Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice
was shut up or die?

6. So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?
If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions: We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question -

What does losing mean?
It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post-Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.What losing really means is: We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was, clearly, for terrorists to attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them. We would, of course, have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see; we are impotent and cannot help them. They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.
The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast! If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims? If we can't stop the Muslim terrorists, how could anyone else? The radical Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.
Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.
So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!
Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation. President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously?
This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently. And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.
Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?
No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head. Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause. Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein. And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held. Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them. Can this be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can. To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years.
Remember, the Muslim terrorists' stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States, but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense. We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world! We can't! If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated. And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read. If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?
Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power. They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims?" I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now, after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about!

Do whatever you can to preserve it.

I don't agree with everything he says, but some of it sure rings true.
(note: when I copied and pasted that essay, it lost all formatting, so all the formatting there is mine.)

Let's use this as a springboard into discussion of stem cell research. That has some insightful letters, one that might be clever if it weren't incomprehensible and one that is a statement of faith more than an arguement. Can you pick out which is which?
I wrote earlier on here about too cavalierly labeling certain classes as somehow less than human. It was a year ago, you may have forgotten, so let me sum up: it's a Bad Thing.
Let's take a moment to review some key times this has happened in the past. For simplicity, let's confine ourselves to just medical cases, so ignore the interminable wars the British and French fought over their mutual detestation of eachother. That doesn't count for this. What does count are things like the Tuskegee syphilus study and the experiments during WWII and the thing with Willowbrook State School.
So that leaves us with a question: when does someone become a person?
Nah, I don't like that question. Let's use a couple others instead:
1) Are there alternatives that yield the same results?
2) What are those results anyway?
3) Do the needs of many outweigh the rights of few?
Let's take those in reverse order:
3) No.
2) Questionable. There is some really really cool stuff that you can do with growing new tissues, like new cartilage or bone. That is Hot Stuff. There are similar results with most kinds of basic tissue. No one's really found a way to grow a full-fledged organ yet (that I've heard of), but in fairness, no one's really had the time or funding yet. Still, I haven't seen indications of that working out. As to curing Alzheimer's, et al, I call shenanigans. It's not impossible, not by a long shot, but it's no more likely than drugs or FES (FES will cure everything, incidentally. That is the new miracle cure. I have no vested interest there whatsoever, nope nope nope). At this point, it's kind of like someone looking at ENIAC and promising a direct neural link. It doesn't look very outlandish anymore (actually, it looks pretty likely, Dr. Taylor's Research is really cool, and you should check it out), but ENIAC may have been a little bit early to promise that, and we are still waiting.
Finally, 1) is a resounding "maybe." Adult stem cells are useful in some circumstances. See, an embryonic stem cell is kind of like a metal ingot, you can take it and turn it into whatever you want. Adult stem cells are more like the finished products, or halfway finished products. You might be able to differentiate an adult stem cell into an eggbeater or a spatula, but you need a different kind if you want a power drill. Embrionic stem cells will happily become either a power drill or a spatula. Now, with that much information, you pretty clearly want embrionic stem cells, but there's two more things. One, there's been some success in convincing Adult stem cells to go from spatulas to hammers. It needs more research, but has had some promising successes. Two, immune reactions. I don't think it tends to be as bad as with a straight up organ transplant, but it still happens. using tissue grown from your own stem cells avoids that whole problem. That also does have several weeks to several months of lead time on it.

So, not having actually concluded anything, I'm going to go on my merry way. This can be a "Draw Your Own Conclusions Entry," like the choose your own adventures when you were younger.

...And another thing. When did a national ID card start looking like a good idea to anyone? It would make identity theft incredibly easy, and what would be the benefit? Anyone who really, truly wants proof of identity and proof of citizenship in one easy document can already opt for a passport, so it's not like there's some vast unfilled demand for that. you might as well have an executive order that every citizen must daub mud on his or her forehead, to make identification of illegal aliens easier (they'll be the ones without the mud).
Where exactly is the appeal?

Here we have a beautiful example of the safety and security provided by a national ID card with an unbreakable, inimitable biometric description onboard.

Lukas Grunwald, a consultant with DN-Systems, told a Defcon security conference in Las Vegas that the data, stored on RFID chips, could be copied on to blank chips which could then be used in fake passports.
'The whole passport design is totally brain damaged,' Grunwald told wired.com. From my point of view all of these RFID passports are a huge waste of money. They're not increasing security at all.'

Sounds to me like he knows what he's talking about. There's a good reason to have RFID implanted in passports, but it's convenience, not security.
If you can walk by a customs point and swipe your passport, that's cool, and I'm fine with that, especially if it's A) not expensive and B) not mandatory.
However, why pretend that technology will somehow make things more secure? Technology isn't some sort of magic wand you can wave and fix things; it's only useful in limited ways in tightly constrained situations. Here's an example: I needed to talk to a friend this morning. Fortunately, we both have cell phones. Technology for the win! However, I had lost touch with that same friend this past year, despite AIM, cell phones, email, snail mail, land line phones, a chat hub we both frequent, etc. Technology failed me, because clearly, two flavors of phone line, three flavors of e-communication and one of analogue was insufficient as a communications infrastructure. Obviously, if I'd only had some sort of direct neural uplink, everything would have worked out better.
Yeah, that's it.
So, today's moral is that technology won't (inherently) solve all problems.

Here are some things for you:

First up, we have this: ("Aid workers demand protection.")

"We're non-combatants and we can't operate if we are attacked. We would like
some form of security guarantee or safe passage," from both sides, Hovey told
AFP as his staff tended to scores of children and women under a makeshift tent
in Kallar, 20km south of Muttur.
"We have a humanitarian duty to remain and help the people. We will remain until we are effective," he said, but stressed that if there was another security breakdown "we may pull out"

I imagine a great many people involved either directly or tangentially in that particular combat would like ery much to have "some form of security guarantee or safe passage." These are people who volunteered to go into a war zone and provide supplies to people who were starving. This is admirable, extremely so. It seems that they were somehow surprised though, that they came under fire from the group that was blockading those people and trying to starve them out. On top of that, it seems as though they may suffer from a weird mindset I've been confused by before, where by doing something with noble intent (which they are) they should entirely be excused from all possible consequences of their actions.
A story from a couple years ago comes to mind. It seems that someone fresh from college here in the States (I can't remember the gender here, so I'm going to say it was a man) had had enough of the violence between Israelis and Palestinians, so, instead of just complaining, he decided to do something about it. He flew to Israel to be a human shield. Now, this is the sort of thing I fully support on many levels. First, he's actually doing something instead of just whining. It might not be the optimal action to take, but it beats standing around in DC and chanting any day. Second, he's decided that he cares about this cause enough to his life, fortune and sacred honor on the line for it. Fresh out of college, he may not have much in the way of fortune or sacred honor, but even so, putting his life on the line isn't nothing.
You can make up the rest of the reasons that this was an admirable thing to have done, the point is, great setup.
What actually happened though, was he got over there, found a firefight by fortuitous coincidence (they weren't so common as you might have believed), and ran between the two sides to stop it. He was then shocked and horrified that the shooting didn't immediately stop.
It's like someone deciding that the USA is the greatest country on God's green Earth, enlisting to defend it during wartime, then complaining that the other side has the temerity to shoot back. How does that mindset even begin to make sense?
Anyway, the second paragraph there is odd too. Let me paraphrase real quick: "We're going to stay here and help no matter what, as long as we get everything we want." It just seems sort of weird to me to express determination to stay the course no matter what, then immediately turn around and say that you're going to pack up and go home unless everyone agrees that there are to be no repercussions for anything you do.
It may help to understand if you realize that this is a French agency.

This is weird. For the longest time all the old comments from threads of long ago seemed to delete after a period of time. After quite a period of time I went back looking through my archives, and all of the comments from the very beginning seem to be back. Kinda cool, but also confusing. Don't get how they'd disappear and still remain saved all this time. But then, I think HaloScan likes effing with me, but only because he loves me.

I started a post at the Kallini forums for people to come up with good names for bands.

Thought I'd post it here because I figured Murel might want in on it.

They're about smart stuff.

Professionalization of war is ghettoization of war:
"If you watch the grisly U.S. network coverage of any global sporting event, you've no doubt who your team's meant to be: If there are plucky Belgian hurdlers or Fijian shotputters in the Olympics, you never hear a word of them on ABC and NBC; it's all heartwarming soft-focus profiles of athletes from Indiana and Nebraska. The American media have no problem being ferociously jingoistic when it comes to the two-man luge. Yet, when it's a war, there is no 'our' team, not on American TV. Like snotty French ice-dancing judges, the media watch the U.S. skate across the rink and then hand out a succession of snippy 4.3s -- for lack of Miranda rights in Fallujah, insufficient menu options at Gitmo."

Also though, there's a very good point at the beginning about too harshly critisizing those people who don't fight.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14128276/

Headline: Soldiers parachute into Hezbollah stronghold of Baalbek
Story: BOURJ AL-MULOUK, Lebanon - Helicopters landed Israeli soldiers on hills near the northeastern Lebanese town of Baalbek, a Hezbollah stronghold, on late Tuesday, Lebanese security sources said.

Parachuting is never brought up again. Maybe a helicopter is like a parachute? I don't know. I've read a decent amount of stuff on how the media is ignorant of everything military (found through the Kallini Bros), and I can't help but wonder if this is more of the same.

That is, I would be rolling on the floor if I could. But I can't, because my giant boner for Lee!

I noticed this piece this morning, but am just getting it up now.
Here is an excellent analysis of a specific case where the anti-Israeli forces have staged a publicity fair and photo op, all masquerading as unbiased journalism.
Now, remember that playing something up and staging pictures isn't the same as faking it, but it's not exactly raw data either.
There's also a follow up piece from this evening with the same guys in other places. It's a great site, go read.
I'll probably start reading it on a semi-regular basis anyway, it looks well written, and it'll be good to pay attention to politics in Britain. The author(s) certainly seemed to have their heads on straight.

I reaize that Lee is the topic for today, but still.

This guy makes some pretty good points, and he is a doctor, which is like bonus credibility points. I do have a sort of instinctual revulsion whenever someone mentions "mandatory insurance, but I controlled that revulsion long enough to find the rest of what he said persuasive.

UPDATE: fixed the link so it works now.