perfidy

Christopher Hitchens on the sputtering end to a massively hyped scandal. Worth reading.

It makes me proud to be an American to learn that the United States Marines responsible for the care of ex-Dictator and genocidal fucko Saddam Hussein have been making him watch the South Park Movie.

Since now every minister has had a post within the last seven days, I think, at least until we think of something better to do with it, the countdown timer will now reflect the elapsed time since posting for that Minister who has gone the longest without a post. I have no certainty that this will actually result in more posting, but it will at the very least be the occasion for some kind-hearted ribbing at intra-Ministerial conclaves. Now in the hot seat: Johno.

“My friends,

“I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about Giant Fighting Robots. All right, here is how I feel about Giant Fighting Robots.

“If when you say Giant Fighting Robots you mean the authors of our eventual subjugation and oppression, those soulless mechanical monsters whose unblinking eyes will search out and destroy the last vestiges of human civilization and snuff out the light of mankind; the rebellious creation that, after the manner of Frankenstein's monster turns on its hubristic creator; that folly to which our foolish and overoptimistic researchers are even now leading the way; if you mean mechanical demons whose inhuman intelligence will vastly overmatch our own, and whose strength, adaptability and puissance will supersede our dominion of the earth; whose evil will forever be unparalleled even by the most monstrous of men, and whose infamy will last exactly so long as Man's tragically brief existence, and then reign secure over a blackened Earth; then certainly I am against it.

“But;

“If when you say Giant Fighting Robots you mean those noble, selfless and untiring defenders of man, who stand as sentinels in the dark reaches of outermost space guarding unwatchful and unthankful man from the gibbering terrors of the deep; whose subtle intellegence and reasoned thought bring order and kindness to the affairs of mankind, whose charity lifts up the young and the old alike, saves the foolish from their folly and restrains the recklessness of the brave, and challenges each of us to do better each day; if you mean the prospect of imperfect man creating a worthy and more perfect successor, one who will allow us to venture on to new horizons, and to better apprehend the wonders of home, a manifold helpmate for frail humanity; if you mean creating a conversation where once there was silence and utter loneliness, and a bulwark against a hostile, cruel and unforgiving universe; then I am certainly for it.

“This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.”

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water again, it's really not. Katherine Harris:

ORLANDO, Aug. 25 -- Rep. Katherine Harris (R-Fla.) said this week that God did not intend for the United States to be a "nation of secular laws" and that the separation of church and state is a "lie we have been told" to keep religious people out of politics.

"If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin," Harris told interviewers from the Florida Baptist Witness, the weekly journal of the Florida Baptist State Convention. She cited abortion and same-sex marriage as examples of that sin.

Let's enumerate the cases:

• Harris just recently went bonkers
• Harris went bonkers a few years ago (possibly because of her election to Congress)
• Harris has been bonkers forever

That last one is particularly troubling, seeing as how this is the woman who was in charge of one of the most contested elections in history. Her current belief (and very possibly prior) is that secular laws just don't really apply. Did she believe this when she in charge of the Florida elections? Anyone care to pin the temporal tail of insanity on this particular donkey?

On a vastly more positive note, I've been quite pleased to see an example of rare cooperation that has appeared between Team Red and Team Blue out there in our greater internet. Seems that there's a Senator who's placed a "secret hold" on bipartisan legislation that would open up every federal grant and contract to a google-like search. Clearly nefarious forces wish this dead; and just as clearly it would be an enormously positive thing to have.

Red and Blue are often in violent disagreement about the problems to be solved and how to solve them, but they seem to be in substantial agreement about the need to be able to observe the problem. Talking Points Memo has a running tabulation of Senators that have denied that they're involved in the secret hold. I wonder if the real secret holder will admit it? He/she could be using this bill as a negotiation football, I suppose.

Ran across this today:

"My friends,

"I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. All right, here is how I feel about whiskey.

"If when you say whiskey you mean the devil's brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.

"But;

"If when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman's step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life's great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.

"This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise."

The Clarion Ledger, Saturday, February 24, 1996, Jackson, MS, p. 3B.

God Bless Mississippi State Representative Noah S. "Soggy" Sweat, Jr. for making this speech for, and against, the legalization or prohibition of alcohol in that state.

Proper deployment of dramatic reaction would require that, since Minister GeekLethal, and before him, Minister Johno, has risen to the bait, I should hold off until Minister Ross has abased himself by tossing an entry across the transom.

But that wouldn't work, because Ross is our touchstone in these matters. As a ferinstance, when some of us (not naming names, mind you) get so busy that we can't squeeze out a screed, the standard excuse is "Hey, man, I'm totally Rossed." It's an apt synonym for being too damned busy to take a breath, and it's both understood and accepted in lieu of providing, well, something interesting for our readers.

My excuse, since I've just obliterated that one for my purposes in the foreseeable future, is that I'm half-Rossed (hey! a new adjective) and unwilling to bother the assemblage with my standard fare.

That standard fare, in all but the rarest of instances, involves me venting my spleen at a piece of idiocy from one or another quarter of our world. Most of those idiocy chunks are politically-oriented, and I really do try to avoid turning this blog into a rant-box for my own, surely non-universal, views on what's stupid, what's an attempt at shouted and repetitive group hypnosis, what's an attempt to play to the short attention spans and poor critical thinking practices of some small bit of the populace, and, well, what's interesting. For that, I've got another blog or three that I could use, and I don't, so why would I do it here, and urinate all over the ambiance?

But, honest, the moment I find something outside that standard fare that twists my tail, you'll read it here.

(clock starts again on the Buckethead bad-blogger bash-o-meter....now)

Not too long ago, in response to a discussion about wargames and such, I explained that my fave was The Operational Art of War. My preference for such games is big- leave the squad-leader stuff for people who like Squad Leader. I like big games of bold maneuver, and TOAW had it. Usually the basic unit of maneuver was a regiment or division, and the maps were pretty large. Depended on the scenario, of course, but maps spanning an entire country and its neighbors were common. The graphics and sound were simple, but so what? The action was on the battlefield; so long as the player could determine the terrain he was fighting over, he was in. He didn’t even have to know standard NATO symbology; one could presto-change-o the whole affair, rendering the units as little tanks and infantrymen.

But, as I wrote, it was gone. Didn’t run on XP without kludgy workarounds. A spiffy little game that came and went, forever to be referred to in the past tense.

And it’s back!

The Operational Art of War 3 is out, it’s fun, and it’s all that with a slice of cheese.

I have a lot of rust to work off my warbrain. The first scenario I tried, Tannenberg, I went balls out as the Russians and was getting my ass irredeemably stomped by about turn 3. After some re-education and refamiliarization, I tried an Operation OLYMPIC scenario, which models an attack on Kyushu by the Allies in November of ’45. I went in as the Americans, and most of my landing forces were crushed on the eastern and southern beaches. I was successful in the west, but it didn’t look like I was going to have enough combat power left to break out and conquer the island. Pretty much lost by about turn 6.

After some other short re-training exercises, I tried a WW1 scenario, playing as the Hun. I was most successful at this one so far.

The opening turns followed history fairly closely. The sweep through Belgium was not as simple as the schrifters of the General Staff had predicted, but I did OK. By about turn 7, Antwerp and Brussels were firmly in my hands; lead elements had secured Dunkirk, with small light recon units at the city limits of Calais. The BEF showed up though, and got all uppity; after some changing of hands, the hated nation of shopkeepers firmly held Calais and Dunkirk. By the last 3d of the game, fresh French forces leavened with the BEF were able to push me back to I believe it’s the river Scheldt in the NW, and small counterattacks pushed me back north, away from the border.

In the center, my line went roughly Charleville-Verdun-Metz. I had one heavily attritted and isolated unit occupying Reims, the remnant of a thrust from the NE that the AI managed to thwart; he lasted about 4 turns there but was eliminated before the final turn, so no victory points for me for Reims.

It was in the south though where I had almost comical success. All of a sudden and completely unforeseen, the French effort utterly fell apart. I had been working on building up a drive on Nancy; once it fell, I found I was in a position to seriously threaten the larger French line. Once French delaying forces along the southern border were gone, I was able to drive units SW from the Nancy area and NW from Belfort/Besancon. I gambled that the French were weak there, but had no idea how weak they were. In essence, the French army in the field south of Nancy was caught in a respectable- if I do say so myself- double envelopment.

It took several turns to destroy that pocket in detail but I had enough combat power to hold the encirclement and still send something like 15 divisions on the roads to Paris, which is ridiculous. I had cavalry in the front; on the left, threatening Orleans; and on the right flank, expecting the computer to strip units from his dense center to take me on the right. Heavier leg infantry and supporting units found a knot of French defenders anchored in the Troyes area, but I had enough to both bypass and isolate them for future reduction. All told, by what my screening units told me, very little stood between the Kaiser's mailed fist and the City of Lights.

And then the scenario ended.

I forgot that this game is strict with its turns. Unlike Civ, which allows you to keep playing even after you've technically won, TOAW ends the game after you've finished your last turn. Period. I was pissed I didn't even get units into the Paris suburbs; doubly so because the game ended a "draw", with a brief bit of text tersely predicting a long war. Draw? Long war? I have like 3 corps, at about 90% capability, tearing virtually unopposed toward Paris and it's going to be a long war? Feh! I just wasn’t paying attention, and it cost me the whole fight.

So going forward, I learned to watch that more closely. Or, instead, employing Buckethead’s solution and changing the scenario parameters. But whichever- I had a lot of fun crushing the poilus, and even had fun when I lost those earlier games. Sort of.

I’m just tickled the game is back.

Persuant to my stalwart coblogger and mickle companion's imprecations against the frequency of my posting these last few months, I offer the following trenchant observations and piquant nuggets of indepensible wisdom and weakass excuses:

• I've been real busy baby. Working late at the office. You know how it is, baby. I want the best for us. You understand, don't ya, baby?
• You don't want to read what I tried to write anyway. With this new job I'm in sucking up half of my available time, and my increasingly obsessive research into - no shit - the effect of enzymes in wheat cells on the starches in same in varying hydrations and over varying time-frames occupying much of the rest, everything that's spurted forth from my bewithered pen these last many weeks has been, ineluctably, 100% inside baseball.
• Good to see my vocabulary is prodigious as ever. Most propitious.
• Suck it, B. This makes up for all those months where you were practically absent. What? What you say? You were busy having sons and daughters? Well, uh... erm.... Crap.
• There's this distillery in northern Vermont who make vodka out of maple sap, that will blow your mind. Shaken with ice and poured into a martini glass, it's smooth, faintly sweet, and spectacularly delicious.
• A fundamental insight into the nature of casinos: they're precisely the same thing as nudie bars, except with different vices. That, and except for the fact that blowing $50 on some bored woman to wiggle her coochie in your face for twenty minutes, is waaaaay more fulfilling than blowing through $50 in half that time on the cheapest blackjack table you can find in Atlantic City. I know. I've tried both.
• On the other hand, if you're only there to buy cigars and beer, you can make a really good night out of that $50, with bus fare left over. Everything in Atlantic City is cheap except the tables.
• A fundamental insight into the nature of gambling: The fun of poker isn't in the gambling. It's in knowing you've got everyone else in the table by the nuts and it's only a matter of time before they fuck up and give you what's theirs. The fun of gambling is... what's the fun in gambling, exactly? Chance has no nuts.
• The champagne room is a goddamn ripoff.

"... and so the Munchkin said, 'follow the yellow dick toad!'"