| 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.
TOP
Current Mail
|
CLICK HERE for
a Special Request. 
