View 263 June 23 - 29, 2003 (original) (raw)
Saturday, June 28, 2003
Roberta took off for the Beach House, leaving me trying to clean up stuff here, and I am way behind. Niven has given me BURNING TOWER to essentially polish up and finish, since the action is carried on to the end now.
I have other small stuff to do and the column is looming. Time to Get To Work.
In another place I have been recorded as saying that the Road Map to peace in Palestine leads nowhere. That's reinforced by the latest FLAME (Facts and Logic About the Middle East) advertisements on settlements, which say "Why shouldn't Jews be allowed to live in Judea and Samaria," begging the question of how they acquire the land and "security" measures including shooting at Arabs gathering olives in fields they have owned for generations. Since FLAME seems to represent the neo-conservative policy views, we may expect the Road Map to fail. Hamas and Sharon are to play chicken to see which one can hold out the longest without killing someone on the other side. I can't think that one of them won't blink first.
As to Jews in Judea and Samaria, sure, there's no justification for saying that Jewish settlers can't come buy land and live in peace, and become citizens of a Palestinian State; but I wonder just how many would want to? The settlers FLAME is defending didn't buy the land, and intend to remain citizens of Israel, defended by the IDF; and they have the right to bear and use weapons that a Palestinian would be shot on sight for displaying, particularly if the Palestinian carried the Uzi into an Israeli village in Israel.
Last Saturday we had lunch with the retired Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem. He was born in Haiffa, and his family had a house there; in 1948 they fled the fighting. Israel confiscated the house, and because he was absent on May 14, 1948 at midnight (I may have the exact date wrong but it is a specific day) he was "absent" and abandoned the property and can never get it back. But he was on the Cathedral throne at St. George's in Jerusalem for many years: as he says, just how was he "absent"? He was easy to find.
I am sure that by now some third party has bought his house, and there is no title insurance in the Holy Land.
And I am glad I don't have to come up with a Road Map to peace, because I don't think the people who actually control things -- Hamas, and Sharon, and Islamic Jihad, and Likud, and FLAME, want "peace" other than on their own terms. So I find myself predicting that the Road Map will lead nowhere. It is one prediction I will be happy to find I was wrong about.
=================
The Iraqi meatgrinder continues. One wonders just how long the troops will put up with it. Soldiers may join armies for a variety of reasons, both economic and patriotic; but soldiers fight for their comrades, not for abstract causes.
There is a scene in Caesar and Cleopatra -- one of the finest movies ever made, this is the Claude Raines/Vivian Leigh picture from Shaw's play -- in with the mob is stoning the Legions. The soldiers stand impassive, in ranks, at attention, as one after another falls to the civilian mob.
Then a trumpet sounds, and a wave of death moves across the public square. So it may yet be in Iraq. Someone will sound a trumpet.
The US in Sinai in perpetuity
In 1979 as part of the Camp David Accords we sent troops to the Sinai Desert to patrol the demilitarized zone.
In 1998 when I went to the Middle East I asked why they were still there. No one had an answer.
They're still there now.
Even if you believe that it is in the interest of the United States to keep the Egyptian/Israeli peace, it is not obvious why US troops ought to be sent to one of the worst places on Earth and kept there. What threatens the peace? What do these soldiers guard? Against what? A sneak attack in the Sinai desert?
No one seems to know what they are doing there. Perhaps it would be cheaper just to send the money they spend and leave the troopers at home?
I may give up on Dark Age of Camelot because they seem to have worked at making one part of it boring, and when games designers do that, it makes you wonder what other control freaks are in charge.
I particular, learning crafts. This is expensive, and time consuming, but if you are making progress you can stand it; but lately it is taking to allowing you to make all the difficult stuff you attempt, thus using up all the resources, but although the item was significantly higher than your skill level, YOU LEARN NOTHING. This means that after 10 successful attempts you have to go get rid of the junk you have made, buy more stuff -- and you haven't go anywhere. The first time that happens it's a quirk. The fifth time that happens it is time to go back to Everquest. I don't know what they think they are doing, but they have managed to get me really really bored with this.
I know they want people to be logged on for long periods doing nothing. If that's not what they want, then why do it this way? If you make the stuff that's at a level higher than your skill you should learn something. If you fail to make it, you don't lose ALL the resources needed for the item. Sometimes you lose none. Making an item at above your skill level while learning nothing is the worst possible outcome. Since I can't think the designers don't know this, one wonders what the point is? To discourage people from learning skills?
On Martha Stewart:
Has anyone noticed that she has been indicted for manipulating her stock by denying that she was guilty of insider trading -- but NOT charged with insider trading.
IE: they accuse you of something. You say you didn't do it. Then they indict you for lying, although they have not proven that you did it -- and they don't even try, and don't charge you with the initial crime. You denied it, and we know you did it, even if we can't prove. What happened to presumption of innocence? Well, we assume you innocent of the original crime in that we don't jail you, but we know you really did it, so we charge you with lying about not doing it.
Now she may or may not be a revolving bitch, but of what is she guilty?
She is also charged with lying to federal investigators, but not under oath. Assuming she was lying, why, precisely, is that a crime?
When I was a lad we had the right to tell cops and investigators any damn thing we wanted to. Perjury was lying under oath. Just bullshucking the authorities wasn't a crime.
But we were born free.
And by all means see
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/ wp-dyn/A5718-2003Jun2?language=printer
about New Witch magazine. If you do spells while computing you must read this first.