Warning!  This is the
        
        Archive Page

        THIS will take you back to the main rant page.

April 6, 2003 - I got really pissed off this morning, and I'd like to tell you why.  Firstly, let me reiterate that I am quite the hippy peacenik treehugger, I feel like the war in Iraq is a huge betrayal by my government, and am rapidly losing faith in the workings of contemporary American democracy, because I feel it has been hijacked by evil, greedy people with no thought for others living on this planet.

Okay, having issued my disclaimer:  I came staggering into the kitchen this morning, and my husband was listening, as he frequently does, to NPR (national public radio).  I came in in the middle, but the gist I got of what I was hearing is that a media person who had been with the American troops in Iraq was reading a "letter" that he felt compelled to write.  He further felt compelled, so he said, to address this letter to the Sergeant he had been with in Iraq, while knowing that it would most likely never be delivered to him, and that the Sergeant might very well never even hear about it.

I don't remember his exact words, but I can summarize:  at one point the Sergeant said to this person, "It was a good day; we killed a lot of them.  That chick just got in the way."  (Apparently, a civilian was killed in fighting with Iraqi soldiers.)  This letter writer then began reading the letter he had written to our anonymous Sergeant, about how the people that he had been so callously counting as bodies had mothers, and children who loved them, "just as no doubt the soldier himself is loved."

That's when I left.  I was furious.  I am a hippie peacenik treehugger, and I am also a gamer, and a (very) amateur student of strategy and psychology.  You do not, and I mean, NOT EVER talk to a Soldier during Wartime like that.  There are so many things wrong with that that I am left almost foaming at the mouth.

Firstly, do you WANT this Sergeant to die?  As repugnant a concept as this is, in WAR, people DIE.  We are working hard to get our government to end this war as quickly as possible, but in the meantime, if our Soldier starts empathizing with the people who are more than willing to kill him, he will most likely be killed.

Secondly, you are offended that civilians are dying?  Don't hold your breath for me to pull out the WTC deaths as justification, let me just remind you of two things.  1)  The Iraqi soldiers are fighting guerrilla style because it's the only tactic that gives them a chance of winning.  This means they are fighting from within their civilian population.  2)  The fact that we KNOW the number of civilians killed, that we even notice, means that we are doing something astounding in the history of warfare - trying NOT to kill them.  Heard of a city in Germany called Dresden?  We bombed that fucker flat, killed EVERYONE in it, and reduced the very buildings to slag.  That was SOP.  Modern American tactics have focused on getting away from the "nuke the site from orbit" philosophy, and I think that's worth applauding.

Now, this last point is why I'm still angry now.  Feeling "compelled" to write a letter reminding our soldiers that they are being required to kill their fellow man, humans who have feelings and families just like they do, blah blah blah….  Feeling "compelled" to write this letter means implicitly that the letter's author doesn't feel that the Soldiers have that knowledge already.  This smacks dangerously of Political Correctness, that bane of actual thinking, that easy path to a feeling of moral superiority without the bother of getting to know the actual people involved.  Our soldiers, currently, are not drafted.  They are volunteers, who may have hoped that they would never be called to serve in wartime, but knew it might happen all the same.  To think that these volunteers are all sociopaths with no moral understanding of the implications of what they do is infantile.  Why do you think Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is so common with soldiers?

To assume that in order to be a soldier one must be morally deficient is repugnant to me.  Yes, I believe that the nonviolent way is the more evolved way, but until we're all at that level, we will need, in Col. Jack O'Neill's words, The Strong to Protect the Weak.   If you're looking for the putrescent cancer that has placed our protectors in the position of having to kill civilians, look at the government that created this war, not at the men and women who have been made to carry it out.

Sorry, this really was a rant.  Don't take it personally, unless you're the guy who wrote the letter in question.  For you, a virtual smack on the head.

Oh, and, by the way, have I mentioned that my son is delighted whenever he sees Bush on the TV?  For some reason he's thrilled by the plant name.  [sigh]

11/8/02 - So you don't lose your head, let's let y'all in on a little background.  I love sarcasm.  I'm quite sarcastic, practically all the time.  What else, let's see.  I'm very opinionated, very confident of my opinions, though I'm always willing to listen to other opinions.  I am most definitely on the left side of the spectrum - quite the hippy, one might say.  I'm a pagan, with my own utterly wacked cosmology.  I think political correctness is evil, since it gives people one more excuse to follow guidelines than to actually understand right and wrong.  Anything that makes it easier for people to ignore their conscience I despise.  I believe in morals.  I don't believe in behaving the right way under threat of punishment - most western religions leave me cold.

I have very high standards and expectations, and as a result, I find myself mostly being a misanthrope.  I hate people.  Individual persons are usually ok, but people in general usually either appall me with their cowlike idiocy or piss me the hell off.  Oh, yeah, I plan on swearing in here - after all, if nothing is sacred, then you should expect profanity, eh?  [embarrassed pause]  Oh, god, that was awful.  It says "Nothing Sacred" because I am going to feel free to rant and rave about anything and everything - no sacred cows, eh?  It DOES NOT mean that I don't hold anything sacred.  Far from it.  I'm almost Confucian in my passion for manners.  Some of the first words my son learned were please, thank you, may I, and you're welcome.  And we use them to each other.  'Course, he also learned Dumbass from me, so there you are.  I also think that the right of every person to be safe, fed, and educated should be sacred.  I think the biggest crime perpetrated against my fellow humans is to tell them they're not smart, and to prevent them from learning how smart they actually are.  I don't discount the inherent laziness of humanity, but I have a big problem with the placid acceptance so many people have of their ignorance.

My thought for today is "Status symbols suck."  I got stuck on this particular thought-treadmill because I attended one of the peace rallies, and all the "no blood for oil" cries really got my dander up.  I started getting all grumpy about SUV's, then saw a news article which stated that only 3% of the 894 models for the 2003 car lines met fuel efficiency guidelines.  WHAT THE FUCK?!?!  I hate SUV's.  Okay, if you actually take them somewhere where they get dirty, or carry a lot of shit, OFTEN, then yes, you could justify it.  But, they're crappy town cars, they get crappy mileage, and they're hideously unsafe!  And, let's face it - an Infiniti SUV?  Just driving something like that makes you a dumbass.  In the HIGHLY unlikely event that someone reading this actually does drive one, let me just say - if you want a luxury car, buy a luxury car, not a luxury deathtrap.  BUT, getting back to my vague-ass topic, here's why status symbols suck.  Is it okay for me to look at a black man and think that he's automatically good at sports?  Is it okay to look at an asian woman and automatically think of her as the dragon-lady from the opium den?  NO.  So, why would anyone want to wear or drive or associate anything with themselves that makes it easier for people to judge them on sight?  Because in this society, being wealthy is equated with everything desirable.  Even as we see the reeking corruption come bursting out of the boil that is the economic elite of this country, we still pursue that image.  When I see someone driving an SUV (for example), I see someone who has so little faith in him or herself, that they have accepted the message that approval will only come their way because of outward trappings.   Weak and sad.

Mad yet?  [grin]  You gotta admit that boil thing was a pretty good sentence.

I get these ideas sometimes, of generally pain in the ass kind of behavior, and my latest one was to get bumper stickers printed, but with printing on both sides (the side with the glue and the side ordinarily printed), and with them only being about the size of business cards, that say "Status Symbols Suck", and you could slap 'em on the windows of SUV's, so the folks inside and out could read and be reminded what herd-creatures they were.  And then I had a flash of inspiration.  Instead of bumper stickers, there's a type of sticker made for inventory control for businesses (like to put on computers, etc.) that go on fine, but when you try to remove them, they are a million little pieces, and it's almost impossible to get 'em off.  That would be better.

11/12/02 - So, I've been meditating on THE TRUTHS OF ONLINE INTERACTION.  If you have used any form of discussion group online for any amount of time, (usenet, email lists, web forums, etc.) you will have encountered the "screw you" archetype.  You know who I mean.  That person who, when a discussion gets a little bit heavy, a little bit conflicted, turns into a name calling jerk, completely freaks out, and when they are criticized, and god forbid asked to stop, the start going on and on with, basically, "You're not the boss of me!"  And when discussion comes up about how to get this person to Just Shut Up and Go Away, they go to great lengths to explain how all methods of blocking them will be ineffectual, and seem to declare war.  A) What the hell do these people do for a living that they have that much free time?  B)  The watchword in this situation is:  Don't feed it.  If they're any good at it, it will take the patience of a saint and the self-control of having a zen master standing behind you with a stick, but DO NOT REPLY. And, C)  even though "talking like you're talking to a child" always seem to be an especial provocation to these people, I've just gotta point something out, aimed directly at these people, using the same terms I use with my 3 year old.

You are being a butthead.  I cannot really stop you from being a butthead.  However, if you persist in being a butthead, no one will want to play with you, and you will eventually realize you are being a butthead off in a corner by yourself.  This is perhaps the most important lesson you will learn.  This is the basis for civilization.  Buttheads don't have a lot of friends.

Lo and behold, one of my email subscriptions sends this (copyright 2002 BrainBuzz.com, Inc., reproduced here with no permission, but with enthusiastic recommendation that you subscribe yourself, at : www.cramsession.com, look for the Byte Back forums)

Five Internet Truths                                                 By A. J. Axline

It has become sadly necessary to deliver a collective slap to the faces of a certain percentage of the goofy family we call "Internet users", and to remind these misguided souls of some self-evident truths concerning what the Internet is, and what it isn't.

First, as the name suggests, the Internet is an international network of computers. It is not cable TV, although many websites offer "programs". It is not radio, although there are Internet "radio stations" that broadcast music, news, and/or drivel. The Internet is a network, with all of the technical issues and limitations that are normally associated with a network. So, if you find that your online game of "Wheel of Fortune" is a bit sluggish, don't write Chaucerian-length missives to your ISP (or to the operators of the website in question) venting your impatient spleen all over them. If you simply must have instant-on access to your entertainment, then turn
 on your radio, television set, or bug zapper.

Second, unless they state otherwise, your Internet Service Provider (ISP) is only responsible for providing you with access to the Internet. ISPs are not censors, babysitters, or moral gurus.  Users who demand that ISPs regulate the content found on the Internet are flyblown idiots. This is akin to walking into a public library, paying for a library card, and then complaining that you're able to access books that you find distasteful. You know, books that claim that the Earth revolves around the sun. Those books.

Third, the Internet is available to anyone who has access to it. If you walk into a global forum expecting that everyone is going to think and act the same way you do, you are, at best, monumentally naive. Further, if you believe like a misguided spouse that you can change the people you encounter in forums and chat rooms, you need to seriously re-evaluate your powers of persuasion.

(That last sentence is deliciously ironic given the subject matter of this week's column, but let's forge ahead anyway, shall we?)

Fourth, your e-mail inbox is not sacrosanct. Please, don't start wailing and gnashing your teeth that it's not right, it's not fair, blah blah blah. E-mail is a direct derivative of the Internet; it is not (nor should it ever be) the same as the postal service of your homeland. Do you really want the government of each individual nation (or better yet, a consortium of governments) regulating how you, and everyone else, can or can't use e-mail?

Yes, it's not right, it's not fair, blah blah blah. And bad things happen to good people, and babies starve while politicians (like the ones you would put in charge of regulating e-mail) plow through the trough like a razorback on Dexatrim. Suck it up, and show some guts. Learn how to regulate your own e-mail, and keep the government out of it.

Fifth, the Internet offers a never-ending cornucopia of pornography. There's no getting around it: if you use the Internet, you will one day, inadvertently or otherwise, be exposed to pornography. Pornography is the number-one income generator on the Internet. One study reports that pornography accounted for $350 million in Internet sales in 2001... and trust me, this isn't from 1,000 perverts paying $350,000 each annually. Sex sells, and porn permeates the Internet like a red sock in a load of whites.

You can learn how to avoid it, block it, stomp on its pop-ups and filter its pages, but you cannot, cannot eliminate porn from the Internet. It would be like trying to eliminate war mongering from Dubya's vocabulary—it ain't gonna happen folks.

So, there you have it... five simple truths concerning the Internet. Now smile, take a deep breath, and repeat this modified version of the Serenity Prayer after me:

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And the Good Sense to use the Back and Delete keys when I am offended.

A. J. Axline

My husband and I got into one of our near-arguments today.  (I am truly blessed - we NEVER fight.  The closest we get is all surly and snappish at each other, and then one of us will kind of force the issue and we talk about whatever's bothering us.)  He mentioned that he was having a "crisis of conscience", and further explained that as much as he didn't agree with anything the man does, or like him, or approve of him, he had to admit a respect for the fact that George Bush is a president who Gets Things Done.  I immediately made a face.  Buh-what?  He said that he simply had to admit that Bush came into office with a clear agenda, and he's accomplishing what he set out to do, even if he does have to sleaze, manipulate, and use loopholes to do it.  I admit I was flabbergasted.  "So, it's okay that he's ripping our environmental protection laws to shreds, because he's doing it in a manner that's technically legal?"  His reply kind of amounted to a, yeah, it's our own damn fault that we left the loopholes open.

There's so much wrong with that I had a difficult time finding words to frame it.  After thinking about it, I choose to sum it up thusly:  The ends do not justify the means.  The president is our highest citizen, and by definition he should be the model of all those characteristics that we desire in our citizens:  Intelligence, wisdom, morals, and ETHICS.  Ethics means doing what's RIGHT.  Skeezing around through loopholes is not right.  Basing a war on the excuse that the UN is being defied, without UN backing, is not right.

A point I have been harping on since the "commercial soundbite" of the union, which was also mentioned by my husband's grandmother in Arizona (a most surprising quarter for me to find validation, I thought) is a very simple one.

Clinton - blowjobs, letting the UN take the lead in global peacekeeping, budget surplus.
Bush - the Christian God popping up every time I turn around, blowing off the Kyoto agreement and the UN to start a war for profit, deep, deep recession.
What's wrong with this picture?

Okay, well, the blowjobs and God thing didn't come up with Grandma, I added that.

Oh, and, by the way, would someone please tell Mr. Bush that God had nothing to do with naming the stars, the Powers MADE the stars, but God gave Adam the job of giving things names.  Bonehead.