There are schools of criticism that say all art and literature is self-referential.
I'm on an updating spree! For fun I took a look at the new blog templates, and decided that I liked this one better; easier on the eyes. Also, it puts the comments link right up front, so that's nice. Only problem is, I lost my site meter when I changed the template, though I'm not sure I care. I also liked 'shouting into the void' so much I made it into the title of my blog.
Monday, May 31, 2004
Something new for the blog!
I know I said I was tired two hours ago, but you know how the internet can be when you have nothing to do tomorrow (or is it later today?)
Anyway, I found a way for people to leave comments on my little blog. If you click the time stamp for a given post, then scroll to the bottom of the page, you should see a link that lets you comment. Anyone can do it, so feel free. Say whatever you want; I really don't care. This should help make it so I don't feel like I'm shouting into the void every time I post something. Then again, given that I've only had about 130 hits in a year and a half, 'shouting into the void' may be an apt phrase.
There is probably a way to get the comments link on the main page, but apparently I can't be bothered to figure that out. It took me 18 months just to figure out that comments were possible at all, so what do you expect?
I know I said I was tired two hours ago, but you know how the internet can be when you have nothing to do tomorrow (or is it later today?)
Anyway, I found a way for people to leave comments on my little blog. If you click the time stamp for a given post, then scroll to the bottom of the page, you should see a link that lets you comment. Anyone can do it, so feel free. Say whatever you want; I really don't care. This should help make it so I don't feel like I'm shouting into the void every time I post something. Then again, given that I've only had about 130 hits in a year and a half, 'shouting into the void' may be an apt phrase.
There is probably a way to get the comments link on the main page, but apparently I can't be bothered to figure that out. It took me 18 months just to figure out that comments were possible at all, so what do you expect?
I was torn between writing something in here, or going for a walk, so I walked to the Rite Aid down the block, bought a pint of over-frozen chocolate Haagen-Dazs ice cream, and now I'm here.
I'm in one of those vaguely depressing, self loathing moods right now, and am not sure I want to unleash it upon my dozens of fans. It's either that or post something I had planned about the guy supposedly responsible for that beheading that American in Iraq, I forgot his name, but it seems the net is inundated with left-leaning blogs on that subject. On the other hand, there is also a plethora of pseudo-intellectual, woe is me blogs as well, so I'm at a loss. I suppose I'll combine the two, as I combined my desire for a walk, and my desire to write. First, the liberal propaganda.
As I can't remember the name of the man assumed to be responsible for the beheading, I'll call him ?????????, which is Russian for anonymous. Sorry if your browser has trouble with the Cyrillic letters.
So, this video of an American civilian getting his head cut off is shown to the world. The United States, and many other countries are shocked and outraged, and for a while it has become a rallying point for people both for and against the war. Those on the pro side are saying things to effect of, "See! This is why the war is a good idea!" and those opposed are saying, "See! This is why the war is a bad idea!" I don't understand either argument. But I digress; I'm here to talk about ?????????.
Shortly after the video aired, ????????? was pegged as the most likely suspect and we, the MSNBC watching public, learned that he has claimed responsibility for something like 50 other acts of terrorism, and is linked to both the Madrid bombings and (surprise!) the 9/11 attacks. It's looking like ????????? might be next on the Department of Homeland Security's hit parade, and I have a problem with that.
I don't have a problem with bringing a guilty man to justice, I have a problem with the pattern I'm seeing. Perhaps I'm paranoid. Maybe I enjoyed 1984 a little too much. Maybe I'm just too jaded and cynical to put any trust whatsoever in politicians (maybe not), but I see a recent pattern with our Public Enemy #1s of late.
First, right after 9/11/01, Osama bin Laden became our primary goal. We were told he was the biggest threat to our nation in the world. We could not, and still can't, find him, and so it's on to Saddam Hussein.
We were told Saddam was the biggest threat to our nation in the world. He had, or was, attempting to acquire Weapons of Mass Destruction, including nuclear material. We caught Saddam, but it's looking more and more like the claims regarding his WMD cache and plans were based on intel that was shaky at best, and fraudulent at worst. The situation in Iraq is deteriorating rapidly, so enter ????????? and his network of agents and sleeper cells as our new national focus.
There is a theory called 'permanent revolution.' I've forgotten where it comes from, I think Lenin or Trotsky, and it's been a while since I read up on it so I may not properly elucidate the concept, but it goes something like this: If you want to maintain power, you must always give the people an enemy, something or someone to rebel against. If they're left to their own devices, they may wake up and realize that their leaders, elected or otherwise, are not acceptable. Originally, this concept was applied when conditions at home (nationally speaking) were bad, and one wanted to distract the populace from that fact. I feel it's being used here and now, to distract America from how bad things are going for us in the Middle East. How can we be upset over the progress of the war (or the reasons for going to war, or the reasons for sticking around) if we're all excited about hunting down Osama/Saddam/?????????/John Doe?
Once Saddam became the focus of things, Osama sort of slid out of the public eye. Once we caught Saddam, you hardly heard anything about him, The war in Afghanistan was half-assed, so we start a war in Iraq. Now that that endeavor is souring, we have a new person and a new terrorist network to target. How often is it mentioned that that more servicemen and women have died in Iraq since President Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" than prior to that? Have you heard that, since our bringing democracy to Afghanistan, 75% of all the opium in the world is grown there? The Afghani economy is nearly nonexistent, so the people need a crop that will bring cash. The drug lords are doing exactly what the United States wishes it was, albeit with a different crop.
Now, I realize that the death toll in Iraq and the opium production in Afghanistan must be mentioned at least some times in the media, else how could I have learned of them, but my point is that they are not mentioned nearly as often as the hunt for whomever, or the struggle to light the candle of democracy in the Mid East. Certainly neither the President nor his administration has makes mention of these facts.
I could continue with this subject, but I'll save that for a later post. I will also save my pseudo-intellectual pity party for a later date, as I am now very tired.
I'm in one of those vaguely depressing, self loathing moods right now, and am not sure I want to unleash it upon my dozens of fans. It's either that or post something I had planned about the guy supposedly responsible for that beheading that American in Iraq, I forgot his name, but it seems the net is inundated with left-leaning blogs on that subject. On the other hand, there is also a plethora of pseudo-intellectual, woe is me blogs as well, so I'm at a loss. I suppose I'll combine the two, as I combined my desire for a walk, and my desire to write. First, the liberal propaganda.
As I can't remember the name of the man assumed to be responsible for the beheading, I'll call him ?????????, which is Russian for anonymous. Sorry if your browser has trouble with the Cyrillic letters.
So, this video of an American civilian getting his head cut off is shown to the world. The United States, and many other countries are shocked and outraged, and for a while it has become a rallying point for people both for and against the war. Those on the pro side are saying things to effect of, "See! This is why the war is a good idea!" and those opposed are saying, "See! This is why the war is a bad idea!" I don't understand either argument. But I digress; I'm here to talk about ?????????.
Shortly after the video aired, ????????? was pegged as the most likely suspect and we, the MSNBC watching public, learned that he has claimed responsibility for something like 50 other acts of terrorism, and is linked to both the Madrid bombings and (surprise!) the 9/11 attacks. It's looking like ????????? might be next on the Department of Homeland Security's hit parade, and I have a problem with that.
I don't have a problem with bringing a guilty man to justice, I have a problem with the pattern I'm seeing. Perhaps I'm paranoid. Maybe I enjoyed 1984 a little too much. Maybe I'm just too jaded and cynical to put any trust whatsoever in politicians (maybe not), but I see a recent pattern with our Public Enemy #1s of late.
First, right after 9/11/01, Osama bin Laden became our primary goal. We were told he was the biggest threat to our nation in the world. We could not, and still can't, find him, and so it's on to Saddam Hussein.
We were told Saddam was the biggest threat to our nation in the world. He had, or was, attempting to acquire Weapons of Mass Destruction, including nuclear material. We caught Saddam, but it's looking more and more like the claims regarding his WMD cache and plans were based on intel that was shaky at best, and fraudulent at worst. The situation in Iraq is deteriorating rapidly, so enter ????????? and his network of agents and sleeper cells as our new national focus.
There is a theory called 'permanent revolution.' I've forgotten where it comes from, I think Lenin or Trotsky, and it's been a while since I read up on it so I may not properly elucidate the concept, but it goes something like this: If you want to maintain power, you must always give the people an enemy, something or someone to rebel against. If they're left to their own devices, they may wake up and realize that their leaders, elected or otherwise, are not acceptable. Originally, this concept was applied when conditions at home (nationally speaking) were bad, and one wanted to distract the populace from that fact. I feel it's being used here and now, to distract America from how bad things are going for us in the Middle East. How can we be upset over the progress of the war (or the reasons for going to war, or the reasons for sticking around) if we're all excited about hunting down Osama/Saddam/?????????/John Doe?
Once Saddam became the focus of things, Osama sort of slid out of the public eye. Once we caught Saddam, you hardly heard anything about him, The war in Afghanistan was half-assed, so we start a war in Iraq. Now that that endeavor is souring, we have a new person and a new terrorist network to target. How often is it mentioned that that more servicemen and women have died in Iraq since President Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" than prior to that? Have you heard that, since our bringing democracy to Afghanistan, 75% of all the opium in the world is grown there? The Afghani economy is nearly nonexistent, so the people need a crop that will bring cash. The drug lords are doing exactly what the United States wishes it was, albeit with a different crop.
Now, I realize that the death toll in Iraq and the opium production in Afghanistan must be mentioned at least some times in the media, else how could I have learned of them, but my point is that they are not mentioned nearly as often as the hunt for whomever, or the struggle to light the candle of democracy in the Mid East. Certainly neither the President nor his administration has makes mention of these facts.
I could continue with this subject, but I'll save that for a later post. I will also save my pseudo-intellectual pity party for a later date, as I am now very tired.
Saturday, May 08, 2004
Of all the mutants Marvel introduced for it's comics, do you know gets my vote for most useful mutant power? Doug Ramsey, aka Cypher. He had the intrinsic ability to understand any language, spoken or written, computer, human or alien. That's downright useful. For those not in the know, Cypher was shot by the Genoshans and almost died, but the phalanx entity known as Warlock merged with him and they became Douglock. I'm done being a geek for the moment. Time to play Halo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)