and turtle doves eat ivy? no

what if the Iranian seizure of 15 British soldiers is an attempt to change the rules of engagement - meaning, the next time there's an approach of an Iranian vessel you don't go down without a fight as the Brits did here? What if it's Iran's intention to create such an incident somewhere down the road, what purpose would be served? I suppose to dampen down public discontent with A---. Rally round the flag, infidel oppressors, all that good stuff. If that is so wouldn't it mean that A--- is supported by the Mullahs? They after all control the Republican Guard, the hardy chaps responsible for this seizure. That would be interesting, no? - because there's been some indication that A--- and the Mullahs are somewhat at odds. Seems to me that would indicate this is not some isolated event but rather part of a strategy.

Because Blair is in a tough spot here and the Iranians must know that - he can't respond militarily, call for more sanctions dwarfed by those already imposed by nuclear standoff, nothing he can really trade off here or exchange for release, except maybe promising to leave Iraq, which wouldn't happen - and the Iranians must have figured all this - so why did they do it? Just to get someone's attention? That seems a little thin, although the timing may suggest that was the reason. Still, I'm thinking it's a bit more pernicious than that - if they perceive the Americans as being vulnerable right now, which they are, a limited skirmish wherein they could claim a victory of some sort could prove useful.

Funny to hear all the right wing boys calling for a strong response that proves their mettle and resolve; comparing Iran to a spoiled child that must be punished accordingly. Typically shortsighted of them in the 'if all you got is hammers everything looks like a nail' mode. Hey, if you really wanna show cold blooded toughness just call their bluff and tell the Iranians to either release soldiers now or summarily execute them - with of course the understanding that response to an unfortunate reply to ultimatum will be somewhat biblical in nature. It ain't poker until you're playing with real money.

War is kind of seductive - I suppose the immensity of it gets people to thinking that the awfulness of life can be overcome. In that sense God and War very similar as far as human projections onto the cosmic screen go.

Parmenides was at the party and embarrassed himself as usual

randy if not giddy liberals announce return of liberalism to political mainstream, rebirth of liberal identified agendas in thoughts and action of politicians and plebs - this because the W has so shamed and degraded conservatism with his botched war and his Rovenian manipulation of public discourse for strictly political ends, a credo manifested yet again in festering fed prosecutor scandal which seems destined to be the good riddance of politcal hack AG Gonsales - Gonsales will come to represent, in that they so shamelessly used and the AG so willing allowed the office to be used as nothing more than a partisan tool, this will come to represent as well as anything Bush has done that there purposes were always strictly politcal : gain control and hold it by whatever means because the coutnry is doomed otherwise.

whatever reason you impute this ethos to I'm not sure matters - that they seem to believe it with such zeal is what unsettles me. I've always maintain that the reason they fucked up the war so badly is because the war was only ever about domestic politics which is why they showed almost no interest at all re phase IV planning : there only concern was a gulf war 1 redux, nice theatre that in combo with 9/11 would allow them to browbeat liberals into whimpering submission and provide them with a huge fucking carrot to dangle before the bovine ignorant eyes of the masses needing to be lead somewhere by someone - just put a switch to their backsides and folks will cooperate - secretly, that's what they want!

i'm no activist, i'm not suggesting plebs rise up from their couches and demand better snacks - i don;t care, the dynamics woudl remain the same - just look at recent poll that suggests 60% of people vote because of perceived character of person they're voting for. Character?! what is that? what it is is the easiest way to reach a comfort level about a decision that really shouldn;t be so easy and shouldn;t be about comfort - if you want polticians to put on pantomimes for you, shadow plays that will softly conote or intimate the comfort food for the fraught intellie=gences of the country - well then sure character is what you'll want very much to base your decisionon - it easy to do

my point being to get back to the beginning: liberals rejoice at the return of liberalism but it's really just a game of back and forth: one rises and the other must necessarily fall because people are going to need to believe in something - but it means nothing more than that. More thought isn;t being invested, more insight provoked, more substance unearthed - the cattle move in a ceratin direction because they have to move in some diection - that the switch that drives them has been taken up by the left hand because the right has tired is meaningless to them.

Democracy is simply the refinement of ignorance into a more progressive command structure; the dynamics seem to suggest the democratic model is very much different from the serf/lord paradime out of which it grew, in reality though all things cohere within the one substance.

better hell than heaven if it's your heaven

"... well, I will not renounce my vote for the war. It was a rational decision; and with equal rationality I understand that it appears now to have possibly been a flawed decision, possibly flawed in the sense that we can never have experience of the alternatives and so can never know which for certain was the more foolish reckoning no matter how foolish the decision we did make appears now to be - and any who suppose otherwise are cowards or charlatans. But let me ask you this: you are lost on a deserted stretch of road in a wilderness; two cars stop to help you, one driven by an incoherent youth smelling of drugs and lassitude and the other by a middle aged man of reasonable demeanor; you choose a ride with the latter; he turns out to be a fool, a clueless driver with no sense of what he's doing so that you end up more lost than you were before; based on the pre-existing evidence was your decision wrong? Obviously not, it just turned out that way - and so what would be the point of apologizing for it? The apology is meant to appease the hurt feelings of whom exactly or undo what perceived wrong? Not all choices are the same and it's disingenuous to act as if they are. No, renouncing my vote would be wasted breath to serve a purpose whose value is hard to discern - unless of course my values change and I come to admire the dissembling ways of people."

instant messaging

Small point - but to a Pythagorean that can mean so much - anyway, I'm not sure it's always understood or noticed that Clinton's famous election rubric of "It's the economy, stupid" was not really at all about the economy but rather about sending the message that it was about the economy to fungible voters. I'm not sure many recognize this or stop to think about the significance of it - well, no doubt those studying the semiotics of social hierarchies etc etc understand and recognize - but your average grunt I'm not sure sees just how much message supersedes practice or content or depth in modern politics - realizes just how smoothly surface meaning has replaced, indeed seemingly obviated need for depth from both purveyor and consumer of these shared messages.

I'd have to remember at least some of the great reams of history I've read in order to know whether or not this is a keen observation - I'm guessing it isn't, if only for the reason that if it's even half as clever as it wants to be I should feel more surprise at having made it - nonetheless I do find it interesting. The smoothly part that is: as if we don't even question, hell, notice anymore the emptiness governing our socializations. [yeah, I'm sure things were so much better a few thousand years ago along the dusty banks of the Nile][now, c'mon, I've said before that the unresolved irony underlying democracy is the necessary belief or illusion that people actually deserve or are worthy of or well suited to the freedom given them - which is not to descry the freedom, which obviously has it's merits, but merely to question what its real value is].

I only bring this up in reference to three things in the news. A poll showing that in America no matter how appealing a candidate may be if he's an atheist only 45% of the electorate would be willing to consider voting for him which means no matter how brilliant a person may be if he doesn't mouth some mindless faith in some obscure thing lurking above he has no chance of winning an election which means that for more than half the electorate voting is not about substance but rather about the intimation of it. Hillary Clinton, in reading a quotation of some hymn affected what she thought was an appropriate southern accent in reading it aloud during a speech. This is really superficial stuff - and yet still ill-advised because it makes her look and sound awkward in her public presentations which will hurt her in comparison to Obama's slick and stylish oratory, yet more evidence of surface rendering substance irrelevant in the argument for the public's presumed conscience. Finally, a liberal strategist in Ontario has suggested the federal liberals soft stand on crime is going to cost them in the election even while admitting that the supposed hard stand on crime espoused by the conservatives is really about which rhetoric on crime appeals most to the voter - ie it's not so much crime that worries people but rather the message sent in how officials talk about crime that matters. The full absurdity of this rhetoric is demonstrated by fact that the only place in Canada where crime is a serious issue is in Toronto, an extreme left wing city with a socialist as mayor - and yet it is conservatives that make tough talk on crime part of their platform. Obviously their appeal has nothing really to do with crime - it has to do with the message, the message is what's important to people.

I just don't see how the marriage of modern media and democracy can long survive. The divorce will be ugly - and I imagine China will be the cold blooded arbitrator divesting parties of their precious assets.

hijaberwocky

Soccer playing Muslim girl - or should one say Muslim girl who plays soccer? - it's hard to know what's appropriate - anyway, aforementioned so forth etcetera in Quebec was not allowed to take the field, mount the pitch - now, that's crude - while wearing hijab, sacramental scarf like artifact that some Muslims [the rules are vague here, open to interpretation and so variously interpreted] insist or demand or ask or prevail upon or strongly suggest although it's entirely up to you, beloved, their womenfolk wear when out in public to keep from provoking sexual unrest among the unclean etceteras [I'm not sure what kind of deviants they attract to these soccer games, but rules are rules I guess, even when they're not]. League officials claim the prohibition was for safety reasons - a scarf getting caught in a scrunchy no doubt and all hell breaking loose. No one really believed that explanation, but officials refused to budge [paradoxically revealing a potentially unclean tendency lurking in their dark thoughts thusly demonstrating the precarious state the poor girl's purity could have been subject to - how many coils the snake does have]. So girl pleaded case to FIFA, the international governing agency for soccer [ya know it's called football ya bloody pagan!] and they replied, ironically enough, that rules are rules and there'll be no scarf wearing on any hallowed grounds whereof soccer [football] players are conjoined for the purposes of sport [you see, that is ironic - so many beliefs to be defended!].

Now, some will cry 'Islamaphobia!' and others will cry something else and I'm not, at this moment anyway, fool enough to try the ramparts of such a ludicrously arrayed fortress of rival prejudices and superstitions and cultural assumptions - I'm sure all are most righteous servants to their various gods and good luck with that. Still, I'm curious, and this is a small point not meant to indicate which side of the argument I find least offensive/annoying/moronic - but, how can playing a sport, in public, how can such an activity be logically reconciled with the intent and purposes of the hijab? I know that haditha [do I have to put an article in front of that? don't know, churl] suggests to some believers that females of the age of menstruation [jeez, how many besotted bastards have been utterly freaked out by that little biological bit of housekeeping?] [and now it turns out the girl is only 11 so why is she even wearing a hijab? It's spiritual grandstanding, that's what it is I tells ya!] who do not cover themselves appropriately will not find favour with Allah and therefore I understand why the girl's desire to wear it should within a certain context be taken seriously - but that does nothing to improve the logic underlying her complaint. No? Yes. No. No? Yes, but -

'Beware the Jabberwock, my son!

The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!

Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun

The frumious Bandersnatch!'

For the rain it raineth every day

Considering the way the right talks about the left and the left talks about the right, as if each to the other is deluded, deprived of common sense, mired hopelessly in partisan sympathies that range from the merely repugnant to grave threat to the republic, good and evil at war for the soul of God's most precious country - considering this isn't it clear that each side must admit to being of the opinion, conscious or otherwise, if one can actually unconsciously be of an opinion [and, given the opinions people be of and cling to sentience certainly is not beyond doubting here] that vis a vis these assumptions, predilections and prejudices the system would appear therefore to be broken, compromised by sundry corruptions to the point where its viability is open to serious question?

Seems clear to me. Fool.

Lear: Take heed, sirrah - the whip.
Fool: Truth's a dog must to kennel; he must be whipped out, when the lady brach may stand by the fire and stink.

Love bade me welcome: yet my soul drew back, guiltie of dust and sinne

"... is a picture art or just information? If the latter, then why, what are the parameters that would take you there? But, if the former, will you not eventually then come to the point where a picture may indeed be art but only in the sense that art is merely information?"

"But art is information," she said, frowning slightly as she slid a lock of hair into the clutches of a crimper.

"I said merely information. It goes without saying that nothing can't be anything without first being something."

Her toiletry came to a sudden halt as she stared at me in the mirror, a poorly defined remorse narrowing her eyes.

"Do you really hate me that much?"