Soul-Devouring Worry
¤ People taking these sidebar brain farts seriously.

Curse of the Day:
¤ May you find yourself unable to stop scratching.

Just as some of you might actually be feeling some sympathy for poor sleepy Fluxypoo, I must now add that I've been waking up at noon, no matter if I go to bed at 4 or 5 or 8.  Yes, out of bed at the crack of noon.  Such hardship.

I'm hoping to sleep late Monday and then get up and finish a couple of projects, and catch up on stuff in the Tuesday blog.  There are four or five things I want to comment on from email that I've been putting off for a week, since my comments will take more than a few snarky paragraphs. And lately I've has so little time/energy/concentration for this blog that I just haven't gotten to them.

In other "stupid things about myself", territory, I can report that the 7 straight days of work have left my body feeling pretty good, actually.  Sore feet, blisters mostly, but that's about my biggest complaint. My right knee was having some issues Sunday, but it loosened up as I ran up and down steps for a while.  Fortunately.

I'm surprised how often I feel really sore at the start of work, and then after 15 or 20 minutes of movement I loosen up and don't hurt anymore. I suppose that beats the alternative, anyway. But I'd think that sore things would get sorer when they are exerted.  It's not like a broken arm feels better if you break it some more.

Sunday after work was fun, since I stopped at four stores and bought stuff.  Mostly Fry's, the electronics superstore.

The more or less in focus photo here shows off my swag.

The take includes the cordless phone, the X-Men 1.5 DVD, the ear hooking speaker thingie for the phone, and the small square to the upper right, which is a 128MB digicam flash card. Unfortunately, the buying was the best part of this whole thing.

The phone is good, actually.  Works fine, nice sound, no interference in the kitchen, bedroom, or bathroom.  And since that's the extent of my apartment, it's perfect.  It's sort of small and not in any way contoured to fit the human hand or ear though, so in a long call it gets annoying. Also, the microphone in it isn't loud enough, with the volume taking it from "inaudible" all the way up to "what?" And there's an odd transmission of sound through the phone, since any slight movement my fingers make drowns out all conversation coming through it with a scratching sound.  Same for switching ears, touching it to the bed, etc.

But it's got a built in answering machine, and two dozen programmable numbers, so I'm happy enough with it for the $39 it was on sale for.

The phone booklet has some nice humor also.  From the page of warnings:

#14: Do not use this unit to report a gas leak, when in the vicinity of the gas leak.

My initial thought was that this was utterly senseless; a sort of warning to not stand near a gas leak dialing your phone since you'd pass out and die, or be blown up.  However it then occurred to me that perhaps there is some incredibly-remote chance that it might create a spark?  How a cordless phone could do that I dunno, but whatever.  It amused me.

The little clip on ear thingie was what I wanted so I could have my hands free to cook or type or whatever.  It plugs into a socket on the cordless phone, and you then put the phone in your pocket or on your belt, and there you are. The concept is sound, but the technology is lacking. The sound is crappy, most importantly.  For both speaking and hearing.

Speaking, Malaya told me I sounded very tinny, and I could hardly hear it at all.  Since the only person I ever really talk to on the phone is Malaya, and she's got a very soft voice and/or a phone with a low volume sending, I couldn't begin to hear her with it on.  Plus the ear clip is just a deal you put around your ear, not a full headset, and it doesn't fit very securely. Which certainly doesn't help with the hearing part. It was the only thing like this that they had at Fry's though, and it only cost $9, so I'm not really stressing.

The digicam flash memory is the worst part, since I didn't know what kind I wanted, and they sold me the wrong kind.  My camera came with a pathetical little 8meg card when I got it last summer for my b-day, and soon after I upgraded to a 64meg of a generic brand, since they were all out of the quality brands.  That was like $12, so it didn't bother me much when it died a couple of months ago.

What did bother me is that I asked about getting a new card Sunday at Fry's.  I don't know what type of card my camera uses, but I told the guy it was very thin, like a slide, and was flexible. He said okay and punched up the code to get a better one.  128MB, five year warranty, $32.  Seemed good to me.

So I get the card at the front desk and then get home and open it up, and it's some totally different type of memory. Square and thick, sort of like a very tiny floppy disk, and nothing that has any possible connection to my camera at all.

I do hate to have to return things.

The last thing was the X-Men movie, which I hadn't seen in the theatres. But since the X-Men 2 previews look good, I'm thinking about seeing that, so thought I should see the first one first, and refresh my comic book memories of the X-Men, which I haven't read in something like 20 years.

I was pretty disappointed with the film, really.  It wasn't bad, very little that made me groan, other than a few of the stupider plot elements, but it wasn't very good either.

Wolverine was always my favorite character in the comic books, since he was so hard core and ruthless and killing people just for the hell of it, while being all tortured and stuff.  In the movie he kills no one, and is a big softie, always trying to help poor little Rogue, and aside from the opening with some cigar smoking, he's pretty much a monk.  No sex, no swearing, and what bothered me most was what a pussy he was. Sure he can regenerate and survive what would kill another man, but that's mostly of use since it lets him get his ass kicked more often.  He has about five fights at close range with various evil mutants, and never once lands a claw swipe.  Even when he's being grappled with he can't find an angle to stab the other person. And when he does stab them, usually by some trickery, he just sticks the blade in and out. Which they invariably heal from in about 30 seconds and return to kick his ass again.  Eviscerate them, sweetie.

The movie was mostly ruined by being PG, I think.  An adult rating would have allowed for some real dialogue and violence, and um... death. As it was everyone is just knocked down a lot.  Also, doesn't Cyclops shoot lasers from his eyes?  They seem to be more like non-lethal pink missiles, since they just blast open doors and knock back guys out of windows, rather than actually cutting holes in them.

I didn't dislike the film, but it was rather passionless on the whole, and I didn't think it lived up to the potential.  But I guess I'm still interested in seeing #2.  Oh, and Storm's wig wasn't nearly as bad as I'd been lead to believe.

I don't care enough about it pro or con to write a review, at least not at this point, a year after it hit the theaters. I guess I'll watch some of the "making of" stuff and see the X-Men 2 features tomorrow, and maybe be more motivated to write something at that point.

The other purchase of note is one I didn't make, and that's a new keyboard.  I checked Circuit City and CompUSA, and neither one had a keyboard I could stand to purchase. The only natural layout ones they had were from MS, or one cheap-o imitation, and none of them had the insert/home/page up, delete/end/page down keys in the usable 3 across by 2 down pattern, and some of them had the annoying plus-sign shape to the up/down/left/right arrow keys. Plus those keys are tinier than usual, making them way too hard to type on in a hurry without looking. Which describes all of my typing.

I shall have to go look for other models on that there Internet I keep hearing so much about.  Though what I really want is a site selling my beloved but discontinued Memorex 3500 keyboards.  Ten, please. 

I expected perhaps some feedback, even angry feedback.  This is the only letter that came in, but since it's both long and angry, it's good enough.  Read the mail, my comments are below.

I've been reading your blog for awhile now and have always enjoyed your writing, and opinions. I've disagreed with your views before, but the April 6th blog actually offended me. While you've been a steadfast opponent of Dubya and almost all government entities to date, your opinions have never came close to prompting me to brandish my pen (satisfactory keyboard) in your direction.

My background in a nutshell: Gulf war vet that actually used his GI plan to go to college instead of a 3 week drunk, but, according to you, basically an over-simplistic, insecure, violent, ignorant redneck that supports our troops while opposing the war.

I think you should sit back and read your latest blogs and try to see through a different set of eyes. It is YOU that is appearing violent, angry, and bitter - and more than a little of an intellectual-elitist (I didn't say pseudo) to those that don't agree with you. (a baseball bat with nails?) Surely you can see that one can truly support our troops while disagreeing with the orders under which they are operating.

My opposition to the war stops at the lack of patience in garnering UN support. Basically, I don't agree with our leadership about the rush to war. Once shots are fired, I honestly believe it is my patriotic duty to stand behind our troops. I certainly hope that the majority of Americans see that the war is JUST, that removing Saddam and any real or perceived WMD is a worthwhile cause, even an obligation.

And yes, the media is blatantly touting our successes and downplaying the dirt. I am sorry that you seem so shocked about it though. It's nothing new. Perhaps we should tone down our unbelievable efforts to avoid collateral damage to Iraq, and concentrate on the bombs that missed their targets and hit day care centers and nursing homes. And when the time comes for the implied inevitability of torturing and executing Iraqi POW's, FOX and CNN will ignore it. Because our troops are probably encouraging the embedded reporters to take a part in our atrocities, so they'll keep mum. Hell, the US flaunts inconvenient international laws all the time. That serves as an excuse for Iraq, and proof that our soldiers will eventually get around to murder and mayhem, as they are just automatonic extensions of our president after all.

And why show the unbelievable, daring rescue of a POW? You make it sound as exciting as a mall security guard swatting the back of a 300 lb. woman choking on a Chick-Filet nugget. The POW was just a GIRL, that probably just surrendered without a shot fired, and anyway, she was just hanging out with a bunch of mechanics and truck drivers - not combat soldiers. Hell, she only suffered a few broken bones in her legs and back - it's not like she was SHOT for her country. (Yawn)

Alright, I'll shut up. This has become a flame, and that's not my intention. I truly do love reading your stuff, and have never written to any website, or newspaper, or bitched publicly about other's opinions before. I admit that I have developed a well-deserved bias for our troops and got a little worked up over your friendly-fire at them. I speak out against Bush almost as much as you, but like many others, snap to attention when he changes his hat from President to Commander-in-Chief (insert automaton line here). And I really lose it when someone, who will never face an enemy (insert pansy writer-boy line here), fires on the troops when they are simply doing an incredibly professional job under unbelievably adverse conditions.

And I just deleted the analogy about how well concessions stands would operate when the opposing team's fans had weapons -- because that would truly be sniping.

Brice 

Reading over what I said yesterday, I don't really see what Brice here is commenting on that much.  I said almost nothing about the US troops, and mostly talked about violent pro-war demonstrators in the US, and how the media is reporting the war in the US.

One thing I would clarify in the first topic I talked about was that I don't mean "everyone who supports the Iraq Attack" when I said, "pro-war types".  I mean specifically the violent and aggressive white males who for some reason feel threatened by people who don't support the war (any war) in Iraq or the Middle East. You can certainly disagree with people who protest actions you disagree with, and I didn't say that they shouldn't.  I just pondered (briefly and out loud) why some people get so pissed about the protesters, when they are so small in numbers compared to the war supporters. And it's not as if they (the anti-war people) have any actual power or political representation, when Republicans control the White House and both houses of congress, and there is almost unanimous support for the Iraq Attack from there. 

The thing it reminds me of most is the way hard core religious types (Christians mostly) feel about science and evolution and atheism.  Where they (the hardcore Christians) are vastly in the majority, and have almost 100% support from politicians, and yet they always seem to be so worried about and threatened by people who don't share their monotheism.

Why?  Why be afraid of people who are such a minority and are virtually powerless?

That's a rhetorical question.

And for the rest, well go read what I wrote yesterday.  I haven't edited it in any way, and I don't agree with his comments on my comments.  I'm not going to do a point by point of the whole thing, since I think the reader who emailed got an impression of my slant that's not there, and ran with that. I have often said (or at least thought) that I support the troops and even support the "remove Saddam" concept.  I just comment on the lies Bush and pals have been so busily using to sell the whole concept.

I'm also pretty cynical and heartless about some things.  One thing I wonder about the anti-war protesters.  Does anyone really give a shit about dead Iraqis?  I mean really, does anyone other than a very few truly-caring individuals care if there are dead Iraqi civilians?  Or soldiers? Soldiers (on whatever side) are there to fight, and they know the risks, and it's voluntary (well, maybe not so much for the Iraqis).  They know the risks and accept them going in, or at least they should; I'm sure a lot of the teenagers who sign up haven't given serious thought to any risks in life.  I certainly didn't at that age, in terms of driving habits and such.  Teenagers thinking they are immortal is a very old and very true archetype.

Anyway, anti-war people protest the dead civilians, but do you really think they care? I don't, I think it's just a stick to try and beat the war/US soldiers with. Same as in Israel; no one really cares about the Palestinians.  They just dislike Israel and taking up the cause of the Palestinians is a good way to go against the Jews, which an amazingly-large number of people world wide are eager to do.

Returning from my digressions to the email that started all of this, here's one example of something I think he's taking me wrong on. Yesterday, I said:

I'm aware that as far as we know the Iraqis murdered a number of them [US troops with PFC Lynch] in relatively cold blood once they were POWs, and even though the US regularly flaunts all inconvenient international laws, those wrongs do not make a right for the Iraqis to murder US soldiers they capture.  If the US troops did the same to any of the Iraqi prisoners, I would hope that would be denounced just as strongly as when the Iraqis do it.

But my point is that Jessica Lynch's story was pumped up for melodrama and heroism, as a feel good mini-saga in the middle of a much bigger campaign, and it's essentially a distraction from the important events.

And he commented on that with:

And when the time comes for the implied inevitability of torturing and executing Iraqi POW's, FOX and CNN will ignore it. Because our troops are probably encouraging the embedded reporters to take a part in our atrocities, so they'll keep mum. Hell, the US flaunts inconvenient international laws all the time. That serves as an excuse for Iraq, and proof that our soldiers will eventually get around to murder and mayhem, as they are just automatonic extensions of our president after all.

And why show the unbelievable, daring rescue of a POW? You make it sound as exciting as a mall security guard swatting the back of a 300 lb. woman choking on a Chick-Filet nugget. The POW was just a GIRL, that probably just surrendered without a shot fired, and anyway, she was just hanging out with a bunch of mechanics and truck drivers - not combat soldiers. Hell, she only suffered a few broken bones in her legs and back - it's not like she was SHOT for her country. (Yawn)

I think it takes a lot of "reading into" to turn my comment into some sort of "US Troops will inevitably kill Iraqi prisoners". Which was not what I meant, and in fact I was trying to make a pro-US soldier point, by saying that the US troops were not killing Iraqi prisoners, and we shouldn't give the Iraqis any sort of break over their murderous POW treatment, since the world at large wouldn't give US soldiers one if they did the same thing. 

I suppose that I mostly comment on the things negatively since what I find interesting to comment on is what the mainstream US media doesn't report on. Or pointing out what they report on endlessly.  Or simply err/lie about, such as exaggerating the injuries and hardship and bravery on our side, and vice versa for the others. It's certainly to be expected; there are about five quotes in the QotD archives on this subject:

In time of war the first casualty is truth. -- Boake Carter

In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies. -- Winston Churchill

There was a strong strain of "oh that poor darling Jessica" right after the rescue, and I found it rather insulting to the woman.  If it had been a man rescued, would there have been a single instance of "poor brave Billy" type comments?  Of course not.  "Noble Private Jones" perhaps, but not lip-quivering stuff using his first name.

Now while absent-minded paternalistic sexism is surely one of the lowest priorities on Jessica Lynch's list of "things to worry about" I found it a pretty typical indicator of the way the US media plays up the sentimental and heart string jerking angle of things.  I guess that's just appealing to human nature, and as a supposed-writer I should know well enough how to focus on the human element of things. But I find it annoying when the media does that, to the exclusion of actual factual reporting.

Another quote from Brice's email that I find relevant to this point.

Perhaps we should tone down our unbelievable efforts to avoid collateral damage to Iraq, and concentrate on the bombs that missed their targets and hit day care centers and nursing homes. 

This is exactly what I would argue against.  I want honesty and objectivity in the war reporting. Not endless specials about the (admittedly heroic and brave) rescue of one POW, or footage of nothing but dead Iraqi children, or how brilliant the US smart bombs are, or whatever.  I would like to see all sides, which is why I read The Agonist every day to get the straight information, unfiltered or gussied up with propaganda for or against the US.

I wouldn't actually say I oppose the Iraq Attack, for that matter.  I've never actually said that, but I guess that my critical nature about the suspicious motives of Bush and company in their rush to war gives that impression.  I'm sort of paraphrasing other bloggers I've read, (something I dislike doing) but like 99% of the world, I am for the speedy removal of Saddam Hussein from power (and this earth) along with all of his corrupt henchmen.  I wouldn't really mind Dubya and pals sharing that bus ride into the sunset, for I think all the aforementioned parties do a lot more harm than good to the world in general. And yes, comparing Dubya to Saddam and wishing death on them both is just the sort of thing that someone is sure to misread and take as a cry for violent overthrow of the US government.  Which it isn't.  Okay, I don't want Bush dead, I'd just like him back doing the things he's best suited for, like chopping up firewood on his ranch, far from any position of power in the US.

As for the Iraq War, I think it's so obvious that the US is the side of more compassion and decency and integrity (at least in action, if not so much in words) that there's no point in even pointing it out.  I mean yeah, we've locked up all of the supposed Taliban from Afghanistan in glorified dog kennels in Cuba, and worked to not classify them as POWs, but what would the Taliban have done to captured US soldiers?  I shudder to think.

And the US troops and war plan is to minimize civilian casualties in Iraq, and anti-war types get their panties all in a bunch when one cruise missile out of hundreds comes down a bit off target. Hey, the alternative would be to simply nuke Baghdad, or perhaps have B-52s carpet bomb the entire city to rubble.  There's nothing to stop the US from doing so, other than world opinion and long term post war goals. It would certainly be easier than trying to launch surgical strikes to take out Saddam loyalists.  My main issue with making positive comments about the US war effort is that every mainstream US media source does just about nothing but.  And in theory, the media is supposed to present a balanced view, and exercise skepticism of the US government's pronouncements on the front.  The media is supposed to be on the side the people, pointing out the lies and hypocrisies, serving the public. But as I said yesterday, it's proving much more profitable to just parrot the official line, and talk about the happy stuff.

Anyway, it's late and I'm losing my train of thought.  More on this topic in the future, most likely.

<-- Yesterday  --  Tomorrow -->
Archives Page