Archive - Mar 2008

Subscribers to Foreign Policy can read "The Next Generation of Terror" by Marc Sageman.

The article strikes me as credible - basically saying that al Qaeda has been reduced to not much of a threat. We have to credit the Bush Administration for not totally failing at everything because al Qaeda is now less of a threat.

However, the Bush Administration's incompetence means that there are far more people who would love to execute successful terrorist attacks against the U.S. The War on Terror has weakened al Qaeda while creating far more enemies. This strategy is like starting the rest of your house on fire to starve the fire in the kitchen of oxygen. I love unwieldy analogies.

At any rate, there is a good chance that the next attack will come from a group of people who are not making phone calls to Afghanistan or Pakistan, who are not really connected to al Qaeda but are inspired by them.

As for what they want to achieve, well, like most religious crazies, their creations suck.

The few times its aspirations have been translated into reality—the Taliban in Afghanistan, parts of Algeria during its civil war, and more recently in Iraq’s Anbar Province—were particularly repulsive to most Muslims.

Which makes me wonder ... I wonder if we would just hand Oklahoma, Alabama, Mississippi, and parts of Texas to the "Christian" conservative warriors, would they leave the rest of us alone? Maybe they would stop trying to force the rest of us to live by a moral code they preach (but mostly ignore as well - check out divorce rates among the loudest "Christian" conservatives) if we gave them a bit of terrority to set up their Evangelical Caliphate.

Back to the article - it points out that the Republican response to 9-11 (which has largely been unchallenged by Dems) is rather counterproductive. The Bush Administration has declared a high profile war on these small-minded cave dwellers and massively publicizes the few near-victories his administration has achieved.

Each of Ashcroft's asinine press conferences validated the al Qaeda chickenfuckers by making it appear that they truly were a major threat (on par with the nuclear weapon toting commies, if you listen to the rhetoric) when they are actually a small rag-tag group of assholes who got lucky because the Bush Administration considered China a bigger threat than terrorists and put a higher priority on ballistic missile defense than anti-terror intelligence.

It is equally crucial not to place terrorists who are arrested or killed in the limelight. The temptation to hold press conferences to publicize another “major victory” in the war on terror must be resisted, for it only transforms terrorist criminals into jihadist heroes. The United States underestimates the value of prosecutions, which often can be enormously demoralizing to radical groups. There is no glory in being taken to prison in handcuffs. No jihadi Web site publishes such pictures. Arrested terrorists fade into oblivion; martyrs live on in popular memory.

The only fear I have with trials of high profile terrorists is the temptation for their comrades to take hostages and attempt to trade prisoners. I hope that whoever finds Osama puts a few rounds into him, pisses on him, drowns him in liquor, and strikes a match. Good riddance.

In a just world, we would do the same to Bush - a man who did 20x the damage to this country in response to 9-11 than the attack did.

Two years ago, Kimmi and I traveled with Sara to the Southwest for a quick vacation over New Year's. We spent a night and morning in Bryce Canyon National Park. I'm finally getting those photos processed. Some were already up, but now I got our Bryce photos online.

It is funny looking back at how much I have learned about photography since them. I'm rather unsatisfied with many of the photos.

I had a regular dermatology appointment on Thursday morning. In the past, I have had to have a few moles removed due to abnormality. I have an unusual abundance of moles and a family history that puts me at slightly elevated risk for melanoma. Also, Michelle had noticed a couple of moles that had recently changed color on my back (big warning sign).

Note: keep track of your moles using ABCD - Asymmetrical (they should not be), Border (if it is irregular), Color (changes are bad, mmmkay), and Diameter (smaller than a pencil eraser is preferable).

So I wandered into the U's Derm Clinic after several years without being checked out. Took 2.5 months to get the appointment after referral from my Doc.

After a full-body exam, they decided to take 4 moles. One was from my leg and has had a black spot for probably 7-10 years without change. This was something that was recommended for removal previously but not a big deal as long as it did not change.

However, as I had 3 on my back that they did not like, they figured they should take out on the one on my leg also. So I got a few punch biopsies. They sewed me back up and sent me on my way. I'll find out if there is anything that requires more investigation, but the chances are slim. Each of the moles showed only minimal chances of imminent catastrophe.

So I went back to work. Got progressively more sore over the course of the day. I forgot how much it sucks to get sewn back together. Can't climb for 2 weeks. Effectively restricted to button up shirts for a few days. Can't wave my arms around like a loon during the basketball games (Davidson for Final Four!).

At some point during the evening or night, I ripped open the stitches from one of the holes in my back - they are all on my mid-upper back on the right side. Didn't notice until I got up to shower the next morning and Michelle took the bandages off. She was taken by surprise at the open wound and got a bit woozy. So I gingerly found a way to cover it with a fresh band aid and decided to get it fixed up.

Got in touch with the clinic again, went back in mid-day and they fixed it with more stitches. So here I am. The pain is mostly gone and just slowly being replaced by itchiness.

The lesson? Put on sunscreen!! Avoid heavy sun exposure. Take care of yourself because it sucks to get divot-ed from time to time.

I started a flickr account so I could experiment and participate in some self-assignment/contents from the This Week in Photography podcast and blog.

I put up this shot of a fire plug (hydrant - but I love calling them fire plugs) which is a high-dynamic-range photo. It is made by combining 3 different exposures of the same image to avoid clipping any shadows or highlights.

Michelle got some flowers from my parents on her birthday. We put them in front of a window and set up the camera to take time lapse photos. On the first day, we took a photo every 5 minutes. On the second day, every 4 minutes.

The first day is interesting as they move around and grow. In particular, check out how high they are at the end as compared to the start. The vertical movement is harder to notice than the lateral. Both videos show 6 frames per second.

Day 1: Watch for the bag of pretzel rods on the counter to disappear around lunch...

Day 2: We got much better sun and the flowers open!

Jeffrey Sachs was on the Diane Rehm Show (download mp3 file for your computer or personal listening device - 51 minutes).

The interview is well worth listening to. He addresses many of the world's problems and gets several difficult questions. I was impressed and will be looking for that book. In particular, I liked the way he talked about issues dealing with the Middle East and the way too many people blame Islam for the anger and violence there.

However, I had a lightbulb explode during a discussion that mentioned religion. One of the reasons I am horrified by the creationist attacks on science and why I strongly believe science must be taught to all students is because it guides how you respond to problems.

We face many problems in our future and Sachs rightly noted we need to use science to figure them out and solve them. I had this thought about a creationist response to problems: prayer. Imagine how many would still be killed and maimed annually if we used prayer rather than science to solve polio.

I have no problem with prayer - in fact, I believe it can be a force for good by reminding us of our interconnection and the need to care for others - but I do have a problem with a reliance upon it. Pray if you want, but act as well. Fortune favors the bold, eh?

This is a big deal because a stupid new documentary is coming out called Expelled and it makes a bunch of ludicrous allegations regarding supposedly persecuted creationists. Let's not forget that we are not telling them they cannot teach creationism, just that they cannot teach it in science class. Meanwhile, they are trying to bar science from science class.

At any rate, there is a funny story about the preview for this movie and who they let in to see it. For those who do not know, PZ Myers is a science blogger who rails against creationist attacks on science. I used to read him, but he posted too frequently and I gave up ... though I loved it when I followed it.

I love the curator in this one. I think this show does a good job of exploring the science v. creationist struggles in this museum.

A couple of years ago, one of the most exciting players to watch in the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament was Kevin Pittsnogle of West Virginia. His exciting play and fun style led to the creation of new terms - including being pittsnogled.

I love new terms to describe stuff. Big fan.

So I want to propose a new one. As I watch Hillary "I-think-you-are-that-dumb" Clinton's response to being called out on her slight embellishment, I thought back to Senator Larry Craig.

When busted soliciting for sex in a public restroom, the Senator tried a number of absurd defenses, culminating in his claims to having a "wide stance." I propose to use this term as the "wide stance defense" and it will be used thusly:

A person is using the wide stance defense when they are caught plainly doing something and they come up with some absurd defense which no sensible person could possibly believe. The wide stance defense is frequently ridiculed by evening shows while being taken seriously on the news (though the reporters undoubtedly break into hyena-like laughter as soon as the camera turns off.

To recap:

In a foreign policy speech last week at George Washington University, Clinton used the description of the dangerous arrival to bolster her argument that she has the foreign policy experience needed to be commander in chief.

She said when she arrived in Bosnia on March 25, 1996, "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

Now that video, photos, and personal experiences have proven that claim to be wholly fabricated, she has claimed that she misspoke.

Hey Hillary, that is a pretty wide stance. Try again.

All episodes of South Park are now available online. I have long believed the best TV show to ever deal with the experience of Americans at war (a rather low bar, I'll admit) is episode 701. It also deals exceptionally well with the Founding Fathers - smartly dismissing the idea that they were somehow a single mind.

Now you can watch it!