Slanderous Discernment

I don't even know where to begin with this...

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 16:16:08 GMT

From www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0809/King_on_Holder_You_wonder_which_side_theyre_on.html

Apparently Rep. Peter King of Long Island (R) is a little confused about torture. I'm not a lawyer, but I know enough about torture to correct him. As always, comments are welcome.

"It’s bulls***. It’s disgraceful. You wonder which side they’re on," he said of the attorney general's move, which he described as a "declaration of war against the CIA, and against common sense."

They're on the side of the angels, sir. It's not against common sense to prosecute people who willfully violate the law to harm people. And the only disgraceful thing about the investigations is they aren't going far enough.

"You're talking about threatening to kill a guy, threatening to attack his family, threatening to use an electric drill on him — but never doing it," King said.

What you're describing is torture. It's illegal, and where I come from we prosecute people who violate the law to hurt people.

"You have that on the one hand — and on the other you have the [interrogator's] attempt to prevent thousands of Americans from being killed."

Oh Christ, not this meme again. Look, torture doesn't save lives, as Darius Rejali and Jane Meyer showed.

Pressed on whether interrogators had actually broken the law, King said he didn't think the Geneva Convention "applies to terrorists," and that the line between permitted and outlawed interrogation policies in the Bush years was "a distinction without a difference."

You're wrong. The Geneva Convention does in fact tell you what you can do with "unlawful" combatants (who commit "intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons"). After a brief hearing you can execute them on the spot (Convention IV, Article 68). You cannot torture them, however, which is why the Bush Administration tried to propagate this horse**** that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to them.

"Why is it OK to waterboard someone, which causes physical pain, but not threaten someone and not cause pain?" he asked, warning of a "chilling" effect on future CIA behavior.

It's not okay to waterboard someone. It's torture. It's illegal under US and international law. You're drowning someone. That's not "okay" at all. That's evil, and where I come from we prosecute people who violate the law to harm people.

I also wouldn't call the effect that it'll have on the CIA's behavior to be "chilling." I'd call it "welcome."

"You will have thousands of lives that will be lost, and the blood will be on Eric Holder's hands," he said.

Again, torture doesn't save lives.

Torture doesn't get us useful information. It puts our agents and soldiers in danger. It makes us look like the bad guys. It is evil. In short, torture fails us on a tactical and strategic level. So why do we keep doing it?

Torture Doesn't Make Us Safe. It just makes us evil.

Tue, 19 May 2009 05:32:16 GMT

"Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

- The United Nations Declaration against Torture

"The fact that you want to have a discussion about how to avoid being accused of war crimes would indicate that you're pretty close to the edge."

- Richard Armitage

We've recently seen some torture advocates come out to give a full-throated defense of the practice, particularly the practice during the Bush administration, with Cliff May and former Vice-President Dick Cheney among the most prominent defenders of the US policy to torture detainees for information. They have produced complete and effective (though inaccurate) arguments supporting the decision to torture for information.

Those who debate them, however, have been less effective, solely because their arguments are less complete. For example, in his interview with Cliff May, Jon Stewart rests his anti-torture argument on torture being antithetical to our values and grossly immoral. Others have based their arguments on the fact that it makes us look bad, or that it opens our soldiers up to that abuse. Partly this is due to personal preference; some arguments are more compelling than others to different people. But partly it is also because no one has collected the main points against torture in one place. So the various counter-arguments have been incomplete.

Ultimately, that is the goal of this work: to provide a complete counter-argument against torture. It is not a scholarly work, but does try to cite sources so you can check them. It stands on the shoulders of giants in this field, in particular Ignatieff's "Lesser Evil," Mayer's "The Dark Side," and Rejali's "Torture and Democracy," so if you're interested, please check them out.

What I have tried to do here is collect the main points on the problems that torture brings, and boil them down to their essence. I have also tried to shy away from arguments that rest on the illegality of torture. While torture is illegal, laws can be changed; I wanted to focus on points that were more immutable. I have also tried to answer some ancillary questions around torture, and provide an annotated further reading list for those interested in the subject.

Please feel free to quote or disseminate this work wherever you see fit. Feel free to only quote the five points only if brevity is needed. You can also direct people to this original post if you would prefer.

While credit to me for compiling this would be nice, my goal is make people fully aware of the points against torture. I would happily trade the former (name recognition, however minor) for the latter (the abolition of ignorance).

I have written this mainly for a Western audience (specifically with the Americans in mind, as the loudest torture advocates seem to come from that country right now). The examples thus come from that setting and their history. However, the points and overall argument are applicable to every country.

Finally, any inaccuracies in or limitations of this work are my own.

Why We Should Not Torture:

The argument against torture rests on five main points: one, torture is immoral; two, torture is the antithesis of democratic values; three, torture is an ineffective at collecting useful information; four, torturing opens our soldiers, diplomats, and citizens to similar treatment; and five, torture undermines our overall goals.

Point One: Torture is immoral

There is little (if any disagreement) about this point. Even those who advocate the use of torture agree that torture is evil.

Their (Dershowitz, May) argument is that saving lives with information extracted through torture is the lesser evil, which would suggest that the use of torture can and should be regulated. Putting aside the belief that torture is an effective way of collecting information (which I will debunk with point three), it is impossible to regulate, as Michael Ignatieff points out. How many people's lives can be at risk before you can use it? 10? 100? 1000? Why just murder- why not torturing to prevent torture? Rejali also points out that the history of regulation has shown that torture cannot effectively be regulated. Checked torture just leads to unchecked torture.

Point Two: Torture is the antithesis of democratic values

Again, another point that is hard to disagree with. Ignatieff explores it fully in "The Lesser Evil." Democracy places the highest value on the person. Torture ultimately degrades both the subject and the torturer (more on that in point five). In fact, a great deal of torture is designed specifically to degrade victims. "Told detainee a dog is held in higher esteem…began teaching detainee lessons such as stay, come, and bark, to elevate his status to that of a dog" (Mayer, pg 182).

John Nagl put it best when he said "frankly, I joined the army to fight against people who torture."

Point Three: Torture is ineffective at collecting useful information

Quite simply, torture doesn't produce reliable information. For information to be reliable, you need to know that it is accurate at least the majority of the time. However, life isn't like "24;" when you torture someone, they don't automatically tell you true and useful information. Instead, torture produces three outcomes: a psychological breakdown in the subject, accurate information, and inaccurate information. The first and second outcomes aren't in dispute. No one on either side of the argument can effectively disagree that accurate information sometimes spills out, or that the subject's will can be shattered by repeated physical and psychological torture. So I'll focus on the third outcome.

The subject confesses inaccurate information for a number of different reasons: the subject knows and won't tell; the subject doesn't know accurate information; the subject thinks they know accurate information but is mistaken; or the subject is telling the interrogator what he/she wants to hear, either to make the pain stop or because the interrogator wants a false confession.

Giving false information under torture obviously happens. An example of this is Mohammed al-Asad, who confessed under torture that "he had hatched plans to assassinate President Clinton, President Carter, and Pope John Paul II" (Mayer, pg 277). Even the CIA didn't believe him, as they noted with his interrogation transcripts that "the detainee has been known to withhold information or deliberately mislead" (Mayer, 277).

Another complication is that torturers' own beliefs can taint the interrogation. "Not surprisingly, torturers interrogate with background assumptions and harvest self-fulfiling results" (Rejali, pg 465). While this can be a problem with all interrogation, torture gives strong impetus for the victim to lie. Quite simply, subjects will lie to make the pain stop. The perfect example of this is Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi who was "physically and psychologically brutalized into fabricating what he thought his captors wanted to hear" (Mayer, pg 135).

Rejali also notes that torture can degrade memory, as prisoners after torture often "express(ing) high confidence in mistaken information, and they suffer peculiar lapses in memory remembering recent events" (Rejali, pg 466). So even if the subject thinks that the information is true, it doesn't mean it's so.

Jane Mayer was correct when she said that "the problem is recognizing what's true" (Mayer, pg 178). Certainly that was a problem with the interrogation of Abu Zubayda, who under torture "reportedly confessed to dozens of half-hatched or entirely imaginary plots to blow up American banks, supermarkets, malls, the Statue of Liberty, the Golden Gate Bridge, the Brooklyn Bridge, and nuclear power plants." Law enforcement officials wasted their time following these false leads (Mayer, pg 178-179).

Torture also taints further investigation. Once you start torturing a subject, it is virtually impossible to change interrogation tactics. Effective interrogation involves rapport-building, which requires trust. Trust is inevitably and unavoidably destroyed by torture. Torture also destroys the success of investigation and human intelligence sources by decreasing aptitude in non-confessional techniques, and by driving away potential informants (few people will step forward when they know torture is on the table, so those with information go to ground).

Ultimately, "the key to interrogation is knowledge, not techniques" (Mayer, pg 144). Torture advocates ignore and undermine this simple truth by insisting that torture will produce reliable information.

Point Four: Torturing opens our soldiers, diplomats, and citizens to similar treatment

Many distinguished thinkers and organizations, including Colin Powell and John Vessey (two former United States Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs), have made this point. By torturing subjects, we give our opponents a legal argument and an ethical excuse to torturing any of our citizens who are captured. Torture also encourages more torture on both sides by creating a Prisoner's Dilemma, even though both sides would be better off if they simply avoided torture.

Point Five: Torture undermines our overall goals

Torture makes us look evil (probably because when we torture, we are evil). This makes counterinsurgency operations more difficult. Counterinsurgency requires us to win over the population. Without their support, we will be far less successful at identifying insurgents, and we are unlikely to gain their support if we torture. Moreover, counterinsurgency requires us to protect the population. As David Kilcullen notes, "unless you make people feel safe, they won't be willing to engage in unarmed politics" (interview with the Washington Post, but a common statement in most counterinsurgency manuals and documents). People won't feel safe if it possible they might be tortured. Furthermore, it drives people to join the insurgency or terrorist organization, because it both frightens the populace and blurs the line between us and the enemy. Terrorist organizations debase human life. In order to maintain the moral high ground, we must not descend to that barbarism.

As both Ignatieff and Mayer have noted, torture also drastically undermines the "discipline, professionalism, and morale" of our own soldiers and interrogators (Mayer, pg 174). Ignatieff and Mayer quite rightly points out that torture not only affects the subject, but the torturer as well. Mayer speaks to a former CIA officer, who states "when you cross over that line of darkness, it's hard to come back. You lose your soul. You can do your best to justify it, but it's well outside the norm. You can't go to that dark a place without it changing you" (Mayer, pg 174).

Conclusion:

Torture is evil, against our nature, doesn't make us safer (in fact, it actually puts us at greater risk) and impedes progress in our goals. Therefore we must not, under any circumstance, use torture.

Q.E.D.

Other Questions surrounding Torture:

Q: Is Waterboarding torture?

A: Yes. Waterboarding is the forced drowning of a subject. As Chris Hitchens states in his Vanity Fair article, " You feel that you are drowning because you are drowning—or, rather, being drowned, albeit slowly and under controlled conditions and at the mercy (or otherwise) of those who are applying the pressure."

Hitchens should know- he was waterboarded for that article.

Q: What about loud noise or music? Is that torture?

A: Yes. Loud noises can and are used to induce disorientation, inflict emotional distress, and disrupt sleep patterns. Continuous loud noise is one of two components (the other being strobe lights) of the torture technique known as the "House of Fun" (Rejali), a technique designed to induce disorientation on the victim and which promises to "reduce the victim to submission within half an hour." CIA black sites used the sound of a crying woman to inflict emotional pain on one of their prisoners (Mayer).

Remember, it is not just about stimuli. It is about how and why you use the stimuli.

Q: What about SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) Training? Is it torture?

A: By the UN definition no (no information or confession is sought, the soldiers aren't being intimidated, it is not discriminatory, nor is it a punishment). SERE Training is designed to help US soldiers avoid, resist, and survive capture by giving them skills and experiences that would be useful in those situations. This can include exposing them to interrogation techniques (including torture) in a controlled setting. There is some debate over the effectiveness of this training, but there is no debate over why soldiers undergo this training: they do so to learn how to survive.

That doesn't mean you can use SERE techniques to interrogate people, because that is when it stops simply being cruel and becomes torture. Moreover, the two situations are completely different. In SERE training, the participant has a reasonable expectation that they will not be killed or genuinely harmed. They know that the treatment will end (indeed, they know when it will end). The instructors aren't there to gain information; rather, they are there to help soldiers resist such treatment in the future. All of this means that the psychology behind it is fundamentally different for both the participant and the instructor.

Bibliography/Further Reading:

Ignatieff, Michael. "The Lesser Evil." (specifically, pg. 136- 143)

One of the more comprehensive arguments against torture, it is simply missing point three and some of the consequences in point five. An excellent starting point for anti-torture advocates.

Mayer, Jane. "The Dark Side."

A well-researched and well-written book on the legal and ethical abuses during the Bush administration. Also a primer on how not to lead an organization. I first read it at the same time as HR McMaster's Dereliction of Duty (on the Vietnam War), and was amused to see similar leadership mistakes described in both accounts.

Rejali, Darius. "Torture and Democracy."

An excellent, exhaustive, and seminal book on the history of torture, its effectiveness (or lack thereof), and its evolution in the modern era. Also, an excellent paper weight or door stop- it clocks in at 3 lbs and 850 pages in hardcover. Seriously, you can pretty much give up your gym membership and use this book instead.

"I remember it well, taxied out of a storm, to watch you perform..."

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 04:41:01 GMT

One of the most memorable experiences of my life was a concert at the Gorge in George, WA. We (100 000 in the campground, 20 000 in the venue) were there to watch the Dave Matthews Band perform what we all knew would be a memorable show.

But the show wasn't the memorable part. Don't get me wrong, the show was incredible. Off the top of my head, however, I couldn't tell you what songs were played. I could guess, and would probably guess right on a number of songs, but that's just because I am a pretty big Davehead.

No, what made the show memorable was the fact that it was LeRoi Moore's birthday, and me and 20 000 people sang "Happy Birthday" for LeRoi Moore. I remember the singing starting unexpectedly. I remember everyone joining in. And I remember LeRoi taking off his sunglasses, stepping forward, and putting his hands over his heart. From the 7th row seats I could see the tears in his eyes.

I just learned that LeRoi Moore passed away tonight at the age of 47. And now there's another person I will never be able to sing Happy Birthday to again.

~AN

Mon, 18 Dec 2006 03:12:36 GMT

I learned of a great site from Neil Gaiman's blog. Basically, it analyzes books you've read and sees how likely you are to have read other books.

I typed in Steven Brust's The Sun, the Moon, and the Stars and got these results. Number 8's ironic, because Brust is a known Trotskyest sympathizer. If you've read his book, you're less likely to have read Karl Marx. In short, you're less likely to be a commie.

~AN

Kevorkian for SG?

Thu, 14 Dec 2006 19:32:16 GMT

Step one will soon be completed.

~AN

Now, with commentary goodness, my top thirty films list!

Sun, 10 Dec 2006 22:07:05 GMT

I'm only posting this list because I'd like to spark some thought, and because I'm always interested in highlighting films. When you read this list, please keep in mind that my qualifications for making this list are nonexistent.

1. Dr. Strangelove- The only perfect film ever made. Every shot, every line, every actor, every direction, every musical cue. All perfect.
2. Lord of the Rings Trilogy- The work, love, and skill that went into these films doesn't show through, only because everyone was so effortless in it.
3. Seven Samurai
4. Casablanca- It's one of two films I watch every year on my day of bachelor bacchanalia celebrations.
5. The Maltese Falcon- Tracy was talking about Hepburn when he said she was "cherce." He could've been talking about this film
6. Duck Soup-

"Mrs. Teasdale: The future of Freedonia rests on you. Promise me you will follow in the footsteps of my husband.

Firefly: (to audience) How do you like that? I haven't been on the job five minutes and already she's making advances to me. (to Mrs. Teasdale) Not that I care, but where is your husband?

Mrs. Teasdale: Why, he's dead.

Firefly: I'll bet he's just using that as an excuse.

Mrs. Teasdale: I was with him to the very end.

Firefly: Hmmph. No wonder he passed away.

Mrs. Teasdale: I held him in my arms and kissed him.

Firefly: Oh, I see. Then, it was murder. Will you marry me? Did he leave you any money? Answer the second question first."

7. Raiders of the Lost Ark- It wasn't Spielberg's most celebrated film, it wasn't even his highest grossing film. But shot for shot, it was his best.
8. Yojimbo- Probably the most influential of Kurosawa's films.
9. Eyes Wide Shut- Highly underrated. We'll think more highly of it in 20 years.
10. The Big Sleep- It's the best actor of all time, playing the best character of all time. The plot makes no sense, but hey, you can't have everything.

11. Citizen Kane- Stop drinking the Kool-Aid on Citizen Kane. It's just not as great as everyone says.
12. A Clockwork Orange- The least subtle film on the list. I mean, really, a two year old can figure out the
13. Beauty and the Beast- It's the other film I watch every year on my day of bachelor bacchanalia celebrations.
14. Schindler's List- The message almost drowns out
15. A Night at the Opera- I feel bad ranking it this low.
16. Hidden Fortress- Famously inspired Star Wars.
17. Man with No Name Trilogy
18. The Incredibles- Monsters Inc was more original. This was pure fun, with a sly, original undertone.
19. Apocalypse Now
20. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade- It's Raiders, if Raiders had been played for laughs.

21. The Killing- Kubrick doing a film noir. Better than you'd expect.
22. Monty Python and the Holy Grail- Popularized British comedy.
23. Hard Boiled- Woo uses visuals to screw with the audience in the hospital scene, which makes me appreciate him more.
24. Barry Lyndon- Another one of Kubrick's films that has become more popular
25. A Day at the Races
26. Saving Private Ryan- Not as good as Band of Brothers, which was shot right after it, but damn good.
27. Star Wars- Really overrated, especially in light of all that came after it.
28. Lost in Translation- It works on moods and subtlety.
29. Unforgiven- It works because of Eastwood's cinematic history.
30. Serenity- It's better written and directed than Star Wars, but less influential. Go figure.

Total List Commentary: I was surprised to see no Scorsese flicks on the list, and no Godfather. The list certainly shows my biases, both for (films with a sense of humor about them, and subtle films) and against (crime and war films) certain films. No Eisenstein, no Godard, no Chaplin. This list is defined by its weaknesses.

Additional List- The Greatest Directors (film or otherwise) of All Time:

1. Stanley Kubrick- He didn't make many films, but all of them were incredible (except perhaps 2001).
2. Steven Spielberg- He made many great films, but a few that were...less than great. Jaws/Close/Raiders/Last Crusade/Schindler's/Saving Private/War of the Worlds/Munich prevent him from being overrated. A master craftsman.
3. Akira Kurosawa- Watch his films.
4. Ang Lee
5. Joss Whedon- Probably the greatest writer of my generation, his greatest works have been in Television. No matter. If Hush/Restless/Once More with Feeling were films, they would have been on the list.

~AN

Perhaps I should have picked a better quote...

Sun, 03 Dec 2006 10:44:22 GMT

Well, the candidate I favored lost. Not to Bob Rae, thankfully. But my guy lost.

That matters less than what it means to the Liberals. I'll provide some quasi-insightful commentary on Wednesday. For now, I have initial reactions:

I read blogs that call Mr. Dion a "non-establishment candidate," and I'm forced to laugh- folks, we're talking about a former senior cabinet minster under two Liberal PMs (Chretien and Martin). He was as big a part of the "establishment" as you can be without being PM. There's a lot to like about Mr. Dion. But his non-existent "non-establishment" credentials aren't part of that package because they are, well, non-existent.

Then I read Liberal Blogs, taking parting shots at Ignatieff that are lazy at best, and dishonest at worst (they're wrong- I disproved their lies here), and I just want to weep out of frustration. I've always wanted to believe that liberals, especially Liberals, tell the truth. The past six months or so have proven otherwise. I may have to reconsider that particular belief.

~AN

Fri, 01 Dec 2006 06:53:58 GMT

I just saw this quote from Samuel Beckett:

“No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.”

It almost makes me like him. But then I remember Endgame.

~AN

Who said something about gaudy crooks and cheap patter?

Wed, 29 Nov 2006 02:34:54 GMT

Alain Vigneault, speaking in the Vancouver Province on 11/29/2006: "We've got to score goals. If we do, we're going to win a lot of hockey games."

Penetrating insight from the Canucks' head coach.

~AN

Leadership and Policy

Tue, 28 Nov 2006 06:45:41 GMT

This weekend's the Liberal Leadership conference, where my party will choose its next leader and hopefully the next PM.

I'm not just a Liberal because I'm liberal in my politics. I became a member of the Liberal Party because I believe that government, no matter how many times it lets me down, can play an meaningful role in the world. It's not just there to provide a few essential services and ensure the market's free. I believe that the government should be our advocate, standing up for us against corporate conglomerates and other countries. That is why I'm on the political left. But I also believe that our world works best when we are presented with the right information and ensured the freedom to make our own decisions. Which is why I'm centre-left.

Somewhere along the way citizens forgot that. We forgot that politics not just about policies, no matter how important they are (and I consider gay marriage to be a very, very important right). It is about how we see the world, and how we will try to solve its problems.

Similarly, we forgot that leadership isn't just polish and policy. Leadership is vision, accountability, and humanity. Too many of our politicians don't understand that. Too many mistake policy announcements as vision. Vision without policy is mere noise; Policy without vision is mere politics. Policy's tactics, Vision's strategy. You need both if you want to win the war.

Policy should be a product of leadership, not be a substitute for it. Which is why I believe that Michael Ignatieff should be the next leader of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Ignatieff has shown his vision for Canada. He wants us to be a country bound by common rights, laws, and opportunities. His proposed domestic policies flow from this vision. He sees a Canada "that takes risks, that stands up for what’s right. A Canada that leads." And then sets forth policy that supports this vision.

Many people have brought up issues about Mr. Ignatieff. Some of them are wrong (Michael Ignatieff does not support torture ), some are fair (I'd like Mr. Ignatieff's supporters to stop comparing him to Trudeau), and some are bizarre (where John Gray admits that Mr. Ignatieff's "right," but shouldn't do anything about it).

Mr. Ignatieff is the only candidate to show he has vision. I have yet to see a vision about what Canada's should be from other candidates. I've read Mr. Ignatieff's books, where he's written on shattered people and war-torn nations, and I sense he has humanity. Does he possess the final piece of the triumvirate? I want to find out.

Does the rest of the party agree with my assessment? Some say no, some say yes. In a week we'll find out.

~AN

"I'm always beneath you, but nothing is beneath me!"

Tue, 28 Nov 2006 05:00:49 GMT

Are screenwriters auteurs? I'm surprised to see this qualifies as a raging debate these days (for an auteur theory primer, read here). The quintessential Auteur Theory work is by Andrew Sarris, entitled "Notes on the Auteur Theory." Showing clarity of vision and cleverness of title, Sarris argued that the director provides the key artistic vision in any film. Directors who enforced their vision upon their films, showing a common theme and technique in their works, and in the process created great films, were considered auteurs, or authors.

There's Kubrick and Kurosawa, two directors who almost singlehandedly prove the existence of film auteurs. Both were heavily involved in all aspects of their films- they wrote the screenplays, did the camera work, and edited the flicks, in addition to the usual directorial work. Their films are meticulously brilliant.

But can't screenwriters be auteurs? Doesn't, say, an Aaron Sorkin or a Trumbo show common themes and techniques in their works? Guillermo Arriaga thinks so, which is how the debate got started again. However, despite what Mr. Tarloff wrote, it's not just the writer who "who has a story to tell." Stories can be told with "pretty pictures" and unscripted glances, and for those you need directors and actors.

Which brings us to this question: can there even be an auteur in film? Kael didn't think so. There are too many cooks involved in movies, she'd probably say, to name one head chef. She's got a point too: where does the script leave off and the directing begin? And don't forget about the actors. We've all seen films brought down by terrible acting. So actors might have a say about the authorship of films.

In the end though, the debate is moot. Mediocre films have either good acting, directing, or scripting. Good films have a combination of the three, and great films have all three in spades. The perfect film? Every shot, every line, every mise-en scene, every actor, every second is perfect. I'm not sure that Kubrick's the creative vision behind Strangelove; if Sellers and Slim Pickens hadn't been there, it would've been less of a film. But I am sure that the finished product was as close to perfection as we're going to get.

It's like Shakespeare. Who cares who wrote Hamlet. Just enjoy it and be happy.

~AN

Wed, 22 Nov 2006 19:03:56 GMT

This guy, who works for a NPO that opposes contraceptives, as deputy assistant secretary of the US federal family planning program?

What's next, Kevorkian for Surgeon General?

~AN

Mon, 20 Nov 2006 09:57:19 GMT

Between 51.1 mil to speak to Matsuzaka, and the new Soriano deal, or 17 mil/season for a guy with a career .325 OBP, we're looking at an inflated market.

You know teams are overspending when a Yankees fan thinks the contracts are insane.

I wonder what effect this will have on previous contracts. Will Ramirez/Giambi/Helton get moved? Will teams pester Cashman about A-Rod (25 mil/season, 9 of which is paid for by Texas)?

I give this spending spree two years tops. Then the market will depreciate back to normal.

~AN

A threefer's what I wanted to have in college

Thu, 16 Nov 2006 07:03:52 GMT

Or it's something that Ziggy Marley smokes. Or maybe both.

Just thought I'd give everyone a heads up: remember the list, you know, THAT list, the one where I mentioned awesome fantasy writers, most of whom just happened to be female?

Put Ms. Clarke on the list. Her first book's incredible. I'm picking up her second book this weekend. Edited by Mr. Patrick Nielsen Hayden, whose wife, Teresa Nielsen Hayden, coincidentally posted here yesterday. You can check out their blog here.

While I'm unsure of how much say an editor has on works, I imagine Mr. Nielsen Hayden had an impact on Strange and Norrell. I can't see how you'd make a 1000 page behemoth that interesting without editorial assistance.

~AN

"Since he had a corpse handy, blame Robinson Nevins for it, and get a twofer"

Thu, 16 Nov 2006 06:47:31 GMT

Tonight, you get a twofer too.

Yeah, suddenly I'm Sir W.S. Gilbert. Deal.

Steven Brust, besides being ~~America's~~ the World's best Fantasy writer, has an excellent LJ. Tonight's post mentions his luck in reading Emma Bull's new book Territory, several months before it is published.

Folks, this is another example of why I should never, ever be famous. Mr. Brust uses this rare opportunity to praise a) Ms. Bull's writing in general and b) Territory in particular. I, on the other hand, would use opportunities as frequently as possible, only so I could name drop:

On a good day: "I was sitting at Clooney's villa sipping Hennessy with Brad, while he played with his kids and I stared at Angelina sunbathing..."

On a very good day: "Me, Steven, Peter, and Martin were sitting there sipping Dalwhinnie and gabbing about film..."

On a great day: "Work's been hectic of late. All I've been doing is planning out my series, film tie in, and novelization with Joss, Kevin, JJ, Rob, and Neil. I really want a break from all this "work."

On the day after everyone realizes that I have no right to be famous: "So me an' K-Fed..."

I obviously wouldn't use my fame as responsibly as Mr. Brust. Instead, I would be a jackass.

The change from now is that I'd be a famous jackass.

~AN

What's the sound of one hand clapping?

Thu, 16 Nov 2006 04:22:02 GMT

51.1 Million USD (approx. 6.02 BILLION Yen) just to talk to this guy.

There are people who would pay that much just to avoid talking to me.

Of course, I'm not nearly as snazzy a dresser.

Seriously, that's a nice suit. 94-96 mph fastball, plus-plus slider, and great fashion sense. Boston's gonna love him.

~AN

Tue, 14 Nov 2006 08:02:27 GMT

I don't like this. And I'm not impressed with people who do.

Apart from the fact that Mr. Mehlman has denied those rumors (see the bottom-ish of the page), I have a problem with "outting" people, even if they promote legislation that screws gays and lesbians. I'm pro-gay marriage and -gay rights for several reasons, including my dislike of government telling consenting adults what to do and my belief that the law should treat people equally. But the big reason I believe that gay marriage should be legal is this: I believe that the greatest good we can do in the world is enable people to make decisions for themselves about their own lives. It's why I'm pro-choice, it's why I support public education, socialized medicine, and welfare, and it's why two people have the right to have and to hold, regardless of their gender or sexual preference. When people are given the opportunity and tools, they will make the right decision for themselves the vast majority of the time. And even when they don't, it is still their right to try.

You don't win arguments by through sleazy actions, and you don't fight hypocrisy with hypocrisy. If Mr. Mehlman is gay, then he clearly has decided to remain in the closet. No matter how much I disagree with that decision (and I do for several reasons, none of which are germane right now), I respect his right to make it. Outting him deprives his right to make that decision about his life for himself, and that's just as wrong as depriving gays of their right to decide who to love and to cherish.

~AN

"It's just there are certain things you’re sure of... like longitude and latitude."

Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:24:49 GMT

Am I the only one who's freaked out by this?

~AN

Mon, 23 Oct 2006 07:52:19 GMT

I always encourage my three readers to ask any question they want, and I'll answer it. And if I haven't, well, I should.

In that spirit, my good friend Jon asked in a previous post "What happened to your wednesday post?"

A: Well Jon, much like your 2006 Mets, I choked hard. Yes, I allowed the pressure of work to override my greater responsibilities to my fan base. I apologize for choking so miserably. Just like the 2006 New York Mets did.

Finished Obama's book yesterday. I enjoyed it- he's an engaging, intelligent writer. He's clearly thought a great deal about the issues facing America as a nation and its people. I think he has some good ideas.

Here's my problem with it: it's a campaign platform. I payed $20 for a campaign pamphlet. A well-written, interesting campaign pamphlet. But a campaign pamphlet nonetheless.

After reading the book, I'm nearly convinced Senator Obama's running for president in 2008. I think that could be a good thing. He's intelligent and well-spoken. He's engaged and engaging. It will be an interesting two years.

~AN

Tue, 17 Oct 2006 07:05:58 GMT

On the off chance that I might have something interesting to say in regards to Barack Obama's new book, I'm going to wait until my Wednesday post before I say something substansive. Really folks, my original post was going to be something along the lines of "OMG, have you seen this? LOL!"

And nobody wants that.

~AN

Thu, 12 Oct 2006 07:13:34 GMT

I just saw Aronofsky's The Fountain, starring Hugh Jackman. The best thing I can say about it is that it made more sense than Van Helsing.

~AN

"We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when"

Mon, 09 Oct 2006 01:02:19 GMT

Well, that was short.

Four games and thirteen hours of playing, and the Yankees are bounced from the playoffs by the Tigers. I was impressed by Verlander and Zumaya- both Tigers throw hard (100 mph+) with movement. I was less impressed by the Yankee pitching, and completely disgusted with Yankee hitters. It's inexcusable to wail away at Bonderman and Rogers. Their problem wasn't that they were too patient (as only this person would think). It's that they became nervous hackers overnight.

Despite the unceremonious exit from the first round, a number of heartening things happened this season:

1) The development of Robbie Cano, Chien-Ming Wang, and Melky Cabrera- All three stepped up this season. All three showed Yankee brass why they shouldn't trade every young player. All three will be looked on next season.

2) Winning the divison despite losing both Sheffield and Matsui for over 120 games each- Despite losing two all-stars (and one of them a borderline HOF to boot), the Yankees took their division. Part of that's due to the Red Sox collapse. Most of that's due to the Yankees stepping up.

3) Retread relief pitchers taking names- Scott Proctor and Brian Bruney showed up this year in a big way. Both of them figure long-term into the bullpen situation.

5) Development deals- Approximately zero important Yankee prospects were traded. Phil Hughes, Tyler Clippard, Jose Tabata, and JB Cox improved. The Yankees picked up Jesus Montero, Ian Kennedy, Joba Chamberlain, and Dellin Betances. The Yankees are quickly reloading the system.

4) Mr. MVP- Derek Jeter put the Yankees on his back this season. Well, except for a little help from...

5) ARod- 35 HR. .915 OPS. 846 OPS in August (his "bad" month). .938 OPS with runners on, .939 with runners in scoring position, .970 with runners in scoring and 2 outs. .970 OPS in Yankee stadium. Only a future HOF could have a year like this and have it considered to be a terrible year.

The disheartening things:

1) Randy Johnson, Jared Wright, Carl Pavano, and the rotating door of the #5- The back end of the rotation was terrible. Next year they'd be better off pitching Karstens and Rasner in the 4 and 5 hole.

2) The worst timing for a three game losing streak- Welcome to the playoffs, where anything is possible.

The smart thing for them to do would be to re-up Mussina, acquire a LAIM (league average innings muncher), continue to develop their prospects, and bide their time. Maybe look into Matsuzaka, maybe not. But recognize the blip and stay the course.

The stupid thing to do would be to fire Torre, sign Zito and Schmidt, trade A-Rod, and burn through prospects like matches.

Of course, I know what the media and fans would choose...

~AN

"A man's only as good as his word"

Thu, 05 Oct 2006 06:27:27 GMT

As promised, the lyrics for "Good Ship Venus" (Loudon Wainwright III version). It's cut because it's definitely NSFW:

Type your cut contents here.

On the Good Ship Venus
by Christ you should have seen us
the figurehead was a whore in bed
sucking a dead man's penis.

The captain's name was Lugger
by Christ he was a bugger
He wasn't fit to shovel shit
from one ship to another.

The second mate was Andy
by Christ he had a dandy
'till they crushed his cock on a jagged rock
for cumming into brandy.

Third mate's name was Morgan
by God he was a Gorgon
from half past eight he played 'till late
upon the captain's organ.

The captain's wife was Mabel
and by God was she able
to give the crew their daily screw
upon the galley table.

The captain's daughter Charlotte
was born and bred a harlot
her thighs at night were lilly-white
by morning they were scarlett.

The cabin boy was kipper
By Christ he was a nipper
he stuffed his ass with broken glass
and circumcised the skipper.

The captain's lovely daughter
liked swimming in the water
delighted squeals came when some eels
found her sexual quarter.

The cook his name was Freeman
and he was a dirty demon
and he fed the crew on menstrual stew
and hymens fried in semen.

And the ship's dog was called Rover
and we turned that poor thing over
and ground and ground that faithful hound
from Great Barrier Reef to Dover.

When reached our station
through skillful navigation
the ship was sunk from a wave of spunk
from too much fornication.

On the Good Ship Venus
by Christ you should have seen us
the figurehead was a whore in bed
sucking a dead man's penis.

-traditional; lyrics from Rogue's Gallery

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to take a shower.

~AN

"I could dance with you till the cows come home.

Mon, 02 Oct 2006 07:02:00 GMT

On second thought, I'd rather dance with the cows till you come home."

The Yankees will be facing the Tigers in the ALDS this year. Which is pretty much the ideal matchup, given the strengths of the Athletics (pitching and defense) and the Twins (Johan Santana).

Now it's time for the real season to begin.

~AN

"Look, I don't even know these #$%holes"

Thu, 28 Sep 2006 05:19:56 GMT

When getting my serving it right certificate for my new job, I came across this court case summary in the textbook:

"Although there are few reported cases, an occupier may be held liable for permitting activities on the premises that pose a fore-seeable risk of injury. This is best illustrated by the case of Jacobson vs. Kinsmen Club of Nanaimo. In Jacobson, the defendant held a “beer party” in an arena. Several uninhibited patrons entertained the crowd by climbing the beams that supported the roof and “mooning” those below. A person known only as “Sunshine” attempted to mimic this feat, but fell from the beam onto the plaintiff. “Sunshine” emerged unscathed, except for the indignity of losing his pants mid-ﬂight, and immediately left. The plaintiff, who was seriously injured, sued the Kinsmen Club under the British Columbia Occupier’s Liability Act."

Before some joker makes the obvious smart-ass comment, this case happened in 1976. I wasn't even alive then.

~AN