They Hate Our Freedoms

That's according to our President.

Or not, says his own Defense Department in a report issued by the Pentagon late Wednesday afternoon before the Thanksgiving Holiday, when it was sure to be missed by the public at large.

Like I said, we need to refocus on the whole good cop thing, peoples. You don't win this war LAPD-style.

Googer

Google relents to Chinese thought-control. Nice.

Finite And Infinite Games 1.3

"Just as it is essential for a finite game to have a definitive ending, it must also have a precise beginning. Therefore, we can speak of finite games as having temporal boundaries-- to which, of course, all players must agree. But players must agree to the establishment of spatial and numerical boundaries as well. That is, the game must be played within a marked area, and with specified players.

Spatial boundaries are evident in every finite conflict, from the simplest board and court games to world wars. The opponents in World War II agreed not to bomb Heidelberg and Paris and declared Switzerland outside the boundaries of conflict. When unnecessary and excessive damage is inflicted by one of the sides in warfare, a question arises as to the legitimacy of the victory that side may claim, even whether it has been a war at all and not simply gratuitous unwarranted violence. When Sherman burned his way from Atlanta to the sea, he so ignored the sense of spatial limitation that for many persons the war was not legitimately won by the Union Army, and has in fact never been concluded.

Numerical boundaries take many forms but are always applied in finite games. Persons are selected for finite play. It is the case that we cannot play if we must play, but it is also the case that we cannot play alone. Thus, in every case, we must find an opponent, and in most cases teammates, who are willing to join in play with us. Not everyone who wishes to do so may play for, or against, the New York Yankees. Neither may they be electricians or agronomists by individual choice, without the approval of their potential colleagues and competitors.

Because finite players cannot select themselves for play, there is never a time when they cannot be removed from the game, or when the other contestants cannot refuse to play with them. The license never belongs to the licensed, nor the commission to the officer.

What is preserved by the constancy of numerical boundaries, of course, is the possibility that all contestants can agree on an eventual winner. Whenever persons may walk on or off the field of play as they wish, there is such a confusion of participants that none can emerge as a clear victor. Who, for example, won the French Revolution?"

Umbert the Unborn

Life, the human condition, suffering, death, morality-- heavy topics, all. So why not unwind with this cheerful cartoon about a soon to-be-aborted human fetus? Enjoy!

(P.S.-- Apologies-- this site is, most ironically, still under construction.)

The Groningen Protocol

Euthanasia in the Never-say-Netherlands-- this is a remarkable read.

So the Dutch have lost their "moral compass" because they are willing to do honestly what others are already doing secretly? Because they are willing to put their necks on the line to end the suffering of those who cannot speak for themselves? I'm sorry, but no-- the Dutch are here exhibiting a moral courage that goes near unparalleled in the free world. Of course, extreme caution needs to be taken when/if giving one's government language for killing its own citizens, even out of mercy, and even if it's the Dutch parliament we're talking about. But the Roman Catholic Church can't have libertarian paranoia as its excuse, so what gives? The Church responds:

Abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research and human cloning all result in the deliberate ending of human life. They go against the most basic human right: the right to life.

Some argue that embryos are not human beings, but consider this: either the embryo is a human being or it is not. If it is not, then it should not become a child and then an adult. To use a simple example: a human embryo will definitely not grow into a cabbage or a kitten. From the moment of conception, a human embryo has all the elements necessary for its full development. Saying that it only becomes a human life after a certain amount of cell multiplication is arbitrary, and contradicts the facts. The embryo becomes a human life because it already is a human life.

As discussed above, this is not just a faith issue. Even though as Christians we know that these things directly violate the Fifth Commandment, “You shall not kill,” every human being is capable of understanding that killing innocent human beings is gravely wrong, whether he believes in God or not. Only selfishness and superficialness can make someone deny this.

That is why the Church is very clear when it speaks on these issues. Abortion is a “moral evil” and this teaching is unchangeable (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2271). Euthanasia is “morally unacceptable” and “constitutes a murder” (CCC, 2277).

Likewise, human cloning and embryonic stem cell research violate human dignity because they involve creating, manipulating, and oftentimes the killing of human embryos solely for research. “It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material” (CCC, 2275). The reason is that a newly formed embryo carries all the genetic material the person will ever need during his or her entire life. A new human being is there—just not in the form that is obvious to the naked eye. Therefore, any attempt to manipulate the embryo or genetic material is the manipulation or destruction of a human being.

Welcome, GeneThug!

Never enough thugs a-blogging these days, to be sure, and them that is are a generally genetically challenged bunch (in more ways 'an one). As a much called for remedy, I, yer Capin', offers ye up the newly mooked "GeneThug." A sticky-warm welcome to ya, cousin!

(And that's all as you'll ever know of his mortal identity, I reckon, unless he otherwise may say. And any thought to link said thug to what was a previously referrenced cousin of mine what went by the quasi-nym "Jonathan" should be held suspect at very best, at knife point in the very worst, if ye get me, matey. . .)

So sit back, sip some holiday grog, and enjoy what may be coming your way, as sure it'll be worthy of your while!

Ahoy!

Mooks

PS-- No idea what the pirate thing is all about, really-- don't ask. I guess maybe I fancy him as kind of a sea-faring gene thug, ya know?

Instant Philosophy II

"Life and death are but sad attempts at sleep."

4/22/97

Welcome, Layli!

Very happy to have you on as an Honorary Mook!

I've always envisioned The Mookblog as a community of voices-- not just my own. And I think you can already see why I've invited her on. I'm really looking forward to tackling/affirming the tough questions Layli posits for as long as she's willing to pose them. And her blogging comes not a minute too late-- I've gone totally MIA to the holiday, I confess. But it's not really my fault, as my house is packed with relatives right now. I do miss blogging away my day and promise to resume at my usual pace come Tuesday next week. In the meantime, thanks, Layli, for keeping the faith.

In addition to Layli, I plan on Mookifying a few more people over the coming weeks whom I know have something to say and whom I think should say it here. And the comments field, always unedited, makes this blog open-mike to all (or should I say, "open-mook"? No, clearly, I should not.) Anyway-- you get the idear-- the more the merrier! Along those lines and in the spirit of Black Friday, don't forget to do your part in sharing the link that keeps on giving. Remember-- the Mookblog makes for the perfect stocking stuffer!

Cheerio!

Mooks

"Mother"

Voted the most beautiful word in the English language.

Poppies

The L.A. Times publishes a piece (courtesy of commondreams.org) raising some familiar concerns about the real state of affairs in Afghanistan. Money quote:

"The country produces 87% of the world's opium, and one out of 10 Afghans is employed by the illicit industry, according to the alarming U.N. report.

Of course, brandishing quotes from the U.N. doesn't sit well with isolationist yahoos. So, for them, here are highlights from the White House's own Office of National Drug Control Policy report, which Friday painted an even darker picture: "Current [Afghan opium] cultivation levels equate to a … 239% increase in the poppy crop and a 73% increase in potential opium production over 2003 estimates" — a sixfold increase in the three years since the Taliban was driven from Kabul."

VaM, CaM, NaM, SaM

(Bless this verse and thank you, Ma'am):

Red rocket--
You are the sun in my mother.

Iron fetus--
Your flame lights not the night,
Yet rusts my blood.

Lincoln's globe--
Electric shock her volcanoes;
She rides your searing needle
To true North.

AUM


11/24/04

Position Peace

My two cents (and that's about what they'll be worth-- I've got no time now or in the days ahead to write proper on this matter) on the rationale for invading Iraq:

Pre the war, you couldn't have argued with the idea that freedom for Iraq and the end of Hussein's regime wouldn't be the ideal-- or at least you shouldn't have. And you can't now-- it ain't humane. But the disconnect between what can be achieved practically on the ground and what can't/couldn't has always been the sticking point, hasn't it? I'm a realist on this question, and always have been-- as was Bush I and Clinton, too. A quick tactical look at the campaign before we knew what we know now-- the region's a terrorist hotbed, invasion will no doubt fuel Al Qaeda's recruitment campaign nitrous style, Sunni ex-Baathists will be pissed, we can therefore expect savage and probably WMD enabled resistance; Iran's right next door drooling all over the oil and the easily swayed Shiite majority in Iraq; loose WMD everywhere post a win, WMD dropping on US troops and allies during the war, and Hussein's missiles launched into nuke-enabled/trigger-happy Israel; a likely oil field torching that would make Kuwait's truly massive disaster look like a cozy campfire; an enormous humanitarian crisis as millions of Food-for-Oil dependents starve within days of the war effort; and a sour international scene limiting allied cooperation resulting in the US taking on much of the effort unilaterally; an intensely factioned and tribal populace making post-war unification and democracy tricky at best; an opponent with cultural values that reject surrender as a conflict resolution option, preferring and embracing fighting to the death; I could go on---- it was a nightmare. These are all points I raised with Jonathan before the war. And the fact that more than half this stuff didn't materialize (WMD, torched oil fields, humanitarian crisis, Israeli involvement, etc.) didn't happen just means that not only is Hussein crazy but that he's also really stupid, and that, more importantly, we got really really really lucky. The stuff we're facing now was totally foreseeable, and it could have been oh much much worse-- incredible when you think of how poorly Bush planned for what has actually taken place.

So Bush knowingly or in ignorance took big gambles on the Risk board, and it paid off initially-- bully-hoo for the president's good dice. But of course, the remaining factors are still in play, and despite the fact that this is the rosey scenario-- it still sucks! Despite the good fortune we've had with troop body counts and all the crap that could have happened not happening, this war has still cost the US plenty on foreign policy, financial, military defensive grounds and more-- the payoff will need to be sweet. It'll have to look like the Iraq envisioned by Michael Moore's "F. 9/11" (irony intended) and soon for this thing not to be a net loss when the sum of its impact is added up. And hey, maybe Bush's luck will continue to hold, and maybe with a few more Fallujah's and after the elections the foreign resistance forces will sorta go away, and nobody will care that the US is still around afterwards, and Iran's perverted old men will suddenly stop taking interest in the little girl who moved in next door, and the Sunnis will just kinda say "ah heck!" and just decide to leave the new government alone. It could happen. I hope so. I'll gladly eat my cred. on the issue if it does. But I don't like these odds.

In sum, despite my favoring the general ideals of democratization in Iraq and everywhere else for that matter, (which I do and did, very much), I didn't and don't see invasion and nation-building there as a particularly safe or viable or timely or measured approach to the threat posed by Hussein. Not when Afghanistan still needed our nation-building attention, not while Osama and Al Qaeda was still heavily in play, and not while we had so much more performing to do on the good-cop act with the Muslim world. If we really wanted to make the case for modernization/democratization as the way to go in the Middle East, we could have done that with stunning effectiveness in Afghanistan-- a place we'd already invaded just months before. Iraq has now, if anything, buried the wider PR relevance of that successful example-- a real pity.

No on this war-- I'd have played the patience/inspections game a little longer with Iraq, despite that tact's many shortcomings.

PS-- as a voter, I might have remained against the war even if I thought nation-building in Iraq was in all likelihood a winning option just to spite Bush/Cheney/Fox News et al. for the outrageously misleading rhetoric on the Iraq-WMD assurances and worse, the Iraq-9/11 implication. I'm still pissed.

Cheerio!

Mooks

Our Demented Farm Policy

And as you're cruising the grocery aisles for corn, cranberries, cutlets and croutons this week, reflect on the absurdity of the fact that you already paid for most of your groceries already. Mmmmm, mmmm, it's pork again this Thanksgiving! Always popular at the Ramsey household.

Giving Thanks-- Your Assignments for the Week

Hi folks--

I'm going to be in class all this weekend, and I've got family coming to visit all through next week, so expect light holiday blogging for a while, I'm afraid.

In the meantime, I am going to drop a couple of bombs on your brain. I am going to give you some lengthy but critically important reading assignments that are guaranteed to give you a wide new perspective on life. It's not light reading, to be sure-- but don't chicken out. Please read them. It matters so much that we all know and understand the world that we live in and the rules that govern it. At very least, these readings will give you something to pray about on Turkey Day besides "over the teeth and past the gums, look out stomach here it comes."

1. Your first assignment.

Start with this speech, and then spend some time getting to know the rest of this website. The information in it could save the world. Seriously. Make sure you stop here, here, and here. If you can handle the truth, here, too.

2. Your second assignment.

This is the full testimony given before the Congressional House Committee on International Relations on April 30, 2003, by Soon Ok Lee. Warning-- this is not for the feint of heart. But if you can force yourself to read it, as I did, your internal "give-a-crap-o-meter" will register a massive spike upward, and you'll definitely learn a new appreciation for why we all must do our part to recognize and confront evil in this world.

3. Extra-credit: Go see the "SpongeBob SquarePants Movie"-- you're gonna need some cheering up.


Here's giving thanks for all of you--

Much love,

Mookie

Feeling Blue?

This is actually kinda cute:

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/depressed.html

Chin up, my assy friends!

An Old Man Once Advised Me . . .

When asked to be skeptical
Immediately
Open your mind.

When asked to be open-minded
Immediately
Become skeptical.

2/23/2000

Iran in Iraq

This is a bit dated, but still a must read. Like I said-- I give Iran about a year to consolidate its win in Iraq.

Where Anarchy Rules

Somalia is the only country in the world that has no national governing body, the BBC reports yesterday. According to the article, it's been that way for thirteen years now. There are some amazing quotes in this piece:

"Somalia is a pure, free market."

"I am from Somalia and to live without government is the most dangerous system."

"I just want a government, any government will do."

"Somalia - where life expectancy is close to 48 years - has some of the world's worst health indicators. A quarter of children die before reaching the age of five. Women run a one-in-10 risk of dying as a consequence of giving birth." (From the "Facts and Figures" section).

Can we now finally write off the radical utopian dream of anarchism as a Hobbesian hoax? Is human nature truly nasty, brutish, and short without Big Brother looking out for us? Not according to this very nicely written Wikipedia explanation of anarchy. Here are some of the relevant passages:

"One common use of the English word anarchy is "a state of lawlessness or political disorder", otherwise known as anomie. This use of the word implies a broad definition: usually, any situation where there is no internationally recognized government is considered anarchy. The current political situation in Somalia, for example, is referred to as a state of anarchy using this definition, since it is in a state of chaos [1] (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/so.html#Govt).

However, in anarchist philosophies, anarchy means an "anarchist society", that is, a society where individuals are free from coercion. Few anarchists would point to Somalia as an example of "anarchy". They would argue that Somalia's warlord system is merely another face of despotism, characterized by brutal use of force by self-appointed rulers. Anarchists do not believe, as Jean-Francois Revel wrote in Democracy against Itself, that "... anarchy leads to despotism ... despotism leads to anarchy ..." [2] (http://www.modulaware.com/a/?m=select&id=0029263875).

In recent history there have been numerous instances of collapse of state authority, sometimes prompted by war but also often due to implosion of the state. In some cases, state collapse is followed by lawlessness, rioting, looting and, if disarray lasts long enough, warlordism; present-day Somalia is often cited as one example. Although such societies are often described as anarchy, they are not organised according to anarchist principles.

However, there are instances in which a society peacefully organizes itself without a government or other form of centralised power, along philosophical anarchist lines. A functioning anarchy would then be a society maintaining stability and civil society without hierarchies. There are some examples, usually small and/or short-lived (many were overrun by outside forces), which are considered successful anarchies in this sense.

Still skeptical? I am, too. But check out what's happening in Denmark:

Freetown Christiania is a quarter of Copenhagen that became independent and self-governing in the 1970s after an anarchist commune took over army barracks in the center of the city. While in theory governed by the laws of Denmark, it is left alone by the authorities. For a third of a century, this self-described social experiment has successfully resolved conflicts threatening its continued existence, arising both internally and from the Danish state.

And look what happened in Spain:

In 1936, against the background of the fight against fascism, was a profound libertarian revolution throughout Spain.
Much of Spain's economy was put under worker control; in anarchist strongholds like Catalonia, the figure was as high as 75%, but lower in areas with heavy Socialist influence. Factories were run through worker committees, agrarian areas became collectivized and run as libertarian communes. Even places like hotels, barber shops, and restaurants were collectivized and managed by their workers.

The communes were run according to the basic principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," of course without the attached Marxist dogma. In some places, money was entirely eliminated. Despite the critics clamoring for maximum efficiency, anarchic communes often produced more than before the collectivization. The newly liberated zones worked on entirely libertarian principles; decisions were made through councils of ordinary citizens without any sort of bureaucracy (it should be noted that the CNT-FAI leadership was at this time not nearly as radical as the rank and file members responsible for these sweeping changes).

In addition to the economic revolution, there was a spirit of cultural revolution. Oppressive traditions were done away with. For instance, women were allowed to have abortions, and the idea of "free love" became popular. In many ways, this spirit of cultural liberation was similar to that of the "New Left" movements of the 1960s.

And here's Hungary:

The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 can be seen as an excellent example of a functioning anarchy, perhaps even of successful communism. From October 22 1956 Hungarian workers refused to obey their managers or their government. Claiming sovereignty for their own workers councils they organized economic, military and social production on an increasing scale. An example of the anarchic social organization was that vast sums of money were freely donated for injured revolutionary fighters; and that this money was left unattended in the street for days at a time. [Emphasis mine.] Peasants supplied the workers with food on a voluntary basis. Between October 22 and December 14 Hungary's economy and society was governed by the democratic opinion of workers councils and voluntary associations. These councils constantly increased in scope and depth, eventually forming a Central Workers Council of Greater Budapest (CWC-GB), with intellectual and student associations affiliated to the body. The attempts to form a national Workers Council were crushed by Soviet military violence.

The Wikipedia entry continues with many other heartening examples of succesful examples of anarchy, and I highly recommend them. And I say "heartening," because who wants to have to accept the idea that we are naturally an evil creature? Who wants to believe that there can be no possibility of human beings prospering freely together as equals? Not I.

Stay tuned for more discussion on the dangers and delights of human efforts at self governing . . .

Our National Debt? Priceless.

Conservatives-- err, excuse me--- Republicans just voted to increase our government's self-imposed borrowing limit from 7.4 trillion to 8.18 trillion. As many of you loyal Mookblog readers know, the National Debt will hit the 7.4 trillion dollar mark any minute now. Republicans couldn't figure out how Congress would avoid writing bad social security checks if they couldn't borrow a bit more cash from China. Hmmmmm . . . can anyone think of (eliminate) a way to increase revenue (tax cuts) when we can't meet our most (for) basic fiscal obligations (wealthy)?

Iran Away

Check it out!

Iran has told European negotiators that it will officially cease and desist in its efforts at enriching uranium and will allow UN inspectors back into its country to have a look around. Hurray! That's great news. And it was a piece of cake-- all they had to do was talk Euro-tough on trade! "No bonbons for you!" So easy!

A little tooooooo easy, perhaps . . .

UPDATE:
Powell thinks we're being punk'd. Here 'tis.

Congratulations again . . .

To my brother, Joe, who was hired today to be a pilot for Southwest Airlines-- a goal he's had for most of his life.

Good job, Baah!

If I Were a Famous World Leader . . .

What Famous Leader Are You?
personality tests by similarminds.com

Atlantis Discovered! Again!

I remember how incredibly excited I was when I'd read that Atlantis had been discovered off the coast of Cuba. National Geographic was going to do a huge special on it. Surely, this would change everything we know about history! An unbelievably momentous occasion! I would never forget where I was sitting when I read that news.

The second time I read that Atlantis had been discovered, I was again amazed! Wow! It wasn't over there, it was way over in the South Pacific! MAN, they were so stupid before!

Then they found out it was in Spain. Heh! Isn't that something, I thought. Atlantis was really really big, I guess. Then it was Ireland. Now it's back in the Mediterranean somewhere, I think.

What's interesting is that strange underwater ruins are indeed being found. It's just a pity that they are being uncovered by people who then immediately discredit their findings by crying "Eureka! Atlantis!" Sure-- it gets them on Yahoo News, but rather than in the Science Section, it's in the Oddly Enough category. Ah well. I still have my hopes . . .

Slate chronicles my ups and downs on this important issue very nicely today.

"The Father of Modern Terrorism"

How'd you like that on your tombstone? I think it clearly belongs on Arafat's-- here's why. And this is the guy that the UN dropped their flags to half-mast for?

The Mookblog is now officially p.o.'d with the UN. I'm beginning to believe that it should be stripped of all governing authority and should exist only to provide a forum for international discussion and conflict resolution. Instead, I'm thinking a new league of democratic nations should be erected in its place, with representatives that are voted on by the citizens of each country, and a president who is voted on in a world election.

Great. Who do I call to get that going, then?

Accountability Question #2: The UN

How do you hold the UN accountable for its failures? How do you do it? Who do you call? Who do you as a citizen write to when you think that the UN shouldn't do things like this, for example? Who gets fired? Seriously, if anybody knows the answer, please let me know.

UPDATE:
Here's the Washington Times on the UN ignoring evidence and resisting the U.S. Senate's demands for information. And this article by Ben Shapiro sums up my sentiments exactly.

Shameless

Will Republicans go to any lengths to avoid holding themselves accountable to their own failures? Apparently yes, they will.

Here's your Economy Corner Update! Awesome!

OKAY!

THIS WEEK---

You get one link, and one link only! It's to The World Trade Organization's trade profile on the United States! Get to know your imports and exports! Super cool!

Enjoy!

Congratulations--

To Nils, Albert, and Laurent-- who all announced this week that they are getting married. (Not to each other-- they have real fiances and everything).

Lots of love and blessings to you all!

Finite And Infinite Games 1.2

"If a finite game is to be won by someone it must come to a definite end. It will come to an end when someone has won.

We know that someone has won the game when all the players have agreed who among them is the winner. No other condition than the agreement of the players is absolutely required in determining who has won the game.

It may appear that the approval of the spectators, or the referees, is required in the determination of the winner. However, it is simply the case that if the players do not agree on a winner, the game has not come to a decisive conclusion-- and the players have not satisfied the original purpose of playing. Even if they are carried from the field and forcibly blocked from further play, they will not consider the game ended.

Suppose the players all agree, but the spectators and the referees do not. Unless the players can be persuaded that their agreement was mistaken , they will not resume play-- indeed, they cannot resume the play. We cannot imagine players returning to the field and truly playing if they are convinced the game is over.

There is no finite game unless the players freely choose to play it. No one can play who is forced to play.

It is an invariable principle of all play, finite and infinite, that whoever plays, plays freely. Whoever must play, cannot play."

Symbols

I have converted the peace symbol into a symbol for war-- by giving it eyes. It becomes a picture of a sad face, and simultaneously a picture of two angry half-faces staring each other down. Does that mean we are at peace only if we do not see each other? Think how we avert our eyes to avoid conflict. It's a more powerful image than the peace symbol, in my opinion. I haven't been able to look at the peace symbol the same way since I came up with this.

Instant Philosophy

"Ignorance is forgetting bliss."

10/30/02

Je Suis Desole

Just click on a number-- you'll feel better. Or just sorry for these poor Kerry supporters.

http://www.sorryeverybody.com/gallery/1/

Horsing Around

For your general amusement, I present to you:

http://www.horsecity.com/arcade/singing/singing_horses.shtml

That is all.

Kerrry Come-back?

A really good read from the Boston Globe. I liked Kerry-- I'm not opposed to the idea of another run. I'd like to see what he can do with the spotlight he's garnered. He was mostly invisible in the Senate before his run this year; imagine how much stronger his case could be if he pulls his party up by its britches, stumps for congressmen in '06, and delivers some innovative new domestic policy to counter Republican ramroding. Of course, if he fails to deliver anything substantial, or worse, if he gets pegged with another flip-flop extraordinaire, than his hopes for another bid at the WH will be buried under a tidal wave of support for Mrs. Clinton. Most importantly, he needs to figure out how to genuinely connect with average Americans-- his biggest challenge by far.

Atheists

All atheists have the upper hand on me.
They calmly accept a world devoid of design
While I leap to avoid cracks in my karmic sidewalk
And wobble to the whim of a Mighty Creator
Declaring Itself from within.
They dig deep holes and lay themselves to rest,
Whereas I end up in China.

11/15/04

A Nice Sum-up of the Culture War

Can be found here. I'm getting a little sick of it already. Too bad it's likely to only get worse. The battle over Specter will pale, PPPAAALLLE, compared to the inevitable battle over Rhenquist's replacement. Awesome.

Iraq

Here's what I see happening:

--4th Quarter, '04: We hold Fallujah, but nobody is patting anybody on the back, and unrest in other parts of the country goes on largely unprotested by hopelessly thin coalition forces.

--Ist Quarter, '05: Elections are held, but violence is ugly-- not insane, but pretty darn ugly. Nobody feels that good about them once they're over, since they don't end up changing anything on the ground. Allawi is President. Great-- now what? Insurgents continue to gain momentum. They reenter Fallujah, or create a new one somewhere else. Sunnis continue to face harsher marginalization due to growing Shiite demands for power.

--2nd Quarter, '05: Shiites put up a frontman-- probably Muqtada again, but it doesn't matter who, really. They begin to clamor for the removal of U.S. forces, given the training of a (still trivial) Iraqi army and elections now months behind them. They and the insurgents begin to speak with one voice, and attacks greatly intensify against U.S. forces.

--3rd Quarter, '05: Coup. Shiite leader oust Allawi. The U.S. attempts to rest control. Violence becomes very intense. The U.S. starts seriously considering a draft, but the political will isn't there.

--4th Quarter, '05: Iraq becomes a sister-state to Iran, who make it known that they would defend the new regime if the U.S. pressed their position. The U.S. withdraws forces from Iraq.

Must democracy be spiritually empty?

An interesting post from the Belmont Club. I'll come back and comment on this later-- I think there's an important discussion here.

UPDATE: The commentary on this post at The Belmont Club is really excellent-- I highly recommend it. My thoughts on the piece? It's a really simple argument-- democracy, of course, is a form of government, which itself is a form of religion, which itself is a form of economy, which itself is a form of spirituality. I assume that this should be obvious to everyone. Therefore, quite naturally, democracy is always infused with spirituality. Duh.

20 bucks to the reader who can best fill in the missing premises. I'll have mine for you by Wednesday.

Mirror

I looked into a pool and saw myself.
So shocked was I at my own mind,
I fell in headlong and left my body.
Still wanting life, my soul returned,
Yet mistook my image for me.
Anointed, baptized, enlightened.

10/25/01

Finite And Infinite Games 1.1

"There are at least two kinds of games. One could be called finite,
the other infinite. A finite game is played for the purpose of
winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing the play."

Acupuncture Point of, err, Three Days Ago

Alrighty!

I, uh, will say this in my defense-- the computer totally ate my post for Lung-2 on Friday, and then, you know, Saturday my brother Joe was in town-- weekend's are just gonna be tricky times to blog. In the future, I'll try and prepare these ahead of time. But don't worry about getting behind schedule-- there are gonna be lots of points that are pretty much useless, and we'll do more than one when we come to them. Onward!

Lung-2, or "Yunmen," meaning "Cloud Glate."

Our next acupuncture point is called "Yunmen," and it is the second point on the Hand Tai Yin channel. The Hand Tai Yin channel is associated with and connected to the Lung. This means that a lot (but certainly not all) of its indications and functions will correspond to conditions of the Lung. Channels are often called after their associated organ here in the West; hence, this point is usually called "Lung-2."

This point is located in the superior lateral part of the anterior thoracic wall, superior to the coracoid process of the scapula in the depression of the infraclavicular fossa, 6 cun (a Chinese inch) lateral to the anterior midline. (In layman's terms, it's on your chest, in the pit up by your shoulder, just under your collar bone. )

You can needle it to a depth of about .5-.8 of a cun, but you must needle laterally-- going straight in risks puncturing the Lung.

"What's it do?" I hear you ask. Well let me tell you--

Yunmen does basically the same thing as Lung-1; that is, treating excess conditions of the Lung-- but it's just not as powerful. However, it does seem quite helpful in treating local conditions of the ribs and shoulder-- particularly if you're having trouble lifting your arm. And believe it or not, it's also very good for pain or inflammation of the ankle! That's according to Dr. Tan, a contemporary acupuncturist who believes that you should needle a point opposite and transversely across the affected part of the body for best results. So needle the left elbow if you have problems with your right knee, your right wrist wrist if you have pain in your left ankle, etc., etc. Interestingly, this seems to be supported by an ancient Chinese text called "The Essential Questions," which says that Lung-2 is one of the eight points for draining "heat" from the extremities.

In TCM, problems of the Lung can be caused by grief or sadness, and vice versa. Lung-2 is able to counter this by restoring optimism and letting the sun shine in-- hence its name, "Cloud Door." However, it's not as good at this as Lung-3. Poor Yunmen-- always crowded out by its neighbors!

In terms of its overall importance and value, I give it 2.5 stars out of 10.

And that's Yunmen!

Culture War-- The North Strikes Back

An anonymous blogger from and for the North/Blue States/Liberal Left stakes out their case in the Culture War.

Warning-- the language in this link is more than a little bit foul.

Bob Jones Declares War

Culture war, that is. Read his congratulatory letter to George Bush.

UPDATE: So they pulled the letter from the Bob Jones University site-- the link's no good now. But here's the defining quote:

""You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ."

Bummer

Scary news on the Homeland Defense front:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101041122-782068,00.html


Cheerio . . .

My blog-- the good, the bad, and the ugly

Hello hello!

Alrighty then.

The good-- I changed the format of me blog so that super long posts don't steal the show; instead, only the first paragraph or so will appear, and you can then decide if you want to continue reading more . . . or not. Also, I fixed my blog so that you can post comments without having to register first. Hopefully that will inspire some of you to jump in and make your opinions known.

The bad-- Blogspot continues to have server problems, so that many a post this weekend got eaten! But I'm learning to save my stuff elsewhere before I try and publish, so hopefully that won't be such a problem in the future. I know they're working on it.

The ugly-- for some reason, my profile and post-links have dropped down to the bottom of the site where no one can find it. Weird. I emailed Blogspot for help-- hopefully they'll get that corrected sooner than later.

Jonathan on Arafat

Hi there!

Okay-- here comes an excellent response from my cousin Jonathan on the question of "Arafat-- friend or shmoe?"

(By the by, you'll be reading a lot of Jonathan in these pages, since I'll be posting his thoughts just about every time I can coax them out of him (which, thankfully, doesn't usually take much effort.) In fact, I will even go so far as to admit that this blog of mine was started in small part because I couldn't convince Jonathan to start his own, so I thought I'd do it for him-- so much do I value his sagacious yaking.) Here's what he has to say:

I hope all's well and swell, cuz! Sorry I haven't replied on your blog yet - my home computer's net access was set up by an extremely paranoid cypher friend, so lots of web things (java, popups, cookies) are disabled, like, say, the pop-up login screen for blogspot.com. I'll see if my setup at work is any friendlier.

Now as for Arafat... the places I'd go to find the dirt aren't particularly leftish or pro-Arab (here's a timeline and links to timeline's of Arafat's career as a terrorist via lgf http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=11&x_article=795
more stuff here:
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP81004
http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-boot11nov11,0,3261290.column?coll=la-home-utilities via lgf, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP75104 via memri, http://www.haaretz.com/), but there are basically two consensus stories on the guy, both with elements of the truth.

As a bias alert, my personal assessment of the man runs towards Evil, Incompetent Vermin - I almost got on a ship to visit a colleague in Cyprus in the early 80's that was, I was later told, attacked by the PLO (thank the Fates I overslept! I ended up being questioned by a very serious Mossad agent, who was interviewing everyone who had a ticket, but missed the trip). The people on deck were sprayed with machine guns once the boat left the harbor of Piraeus. Turkish and Israeli and Egyptian and Syrian guest workers from Europe returning home, Eurotrash (and good ol' US white trash like m'self) looking to party on the Greek Islands, a tactically senseless act of violence, valuable only for the fear and abhorrence it would engender through media coverage, planned under Arafat's leadership. What a jerk.

(from an article in the the Boston Globe):
"It would take an encyclopedia to catalog all of the evil Arafat committed. But that is no excuse for not trying to recall at least some of it.
Perhaps his signal contribution to the practice of political terror was the introduction of warfare against children. On one black date in May 1974, three PLO terrorists slipped from Lebanon into the northern Israeli town of Ma'alot. They murdered two parents and a child whom they found at home, then seized a local school, taking more than 100 boys and girls hostage and threatening to kill them unless a number of imprisoned terrorists were released. When Israeli troops attempted a rescue, the terrorists exploded hand grenades and opened fire on the students. By the time the horror ended, 25 people were dead; 21 of them were children."
One narrative has him as a thug who made it to medium scale warlordism, but who sucked at both low intensity conflict and running a nascent, um, territory. After Arafat walked out on Oslo (over right of return, as I recall, though this is disputed), the Second Intifada resulted in economic catastrophe, as (after multiple terrorist bombings/stabbings) Palestinians were no longer permitted to commute into Israeli territory to work, depriving the Palestinian people of their only real external source of income (aside from non-industrial farming). Massive corruption of EU/UNaid was reported (one estimate of Arafat's personal wealth is in the low [1-2] billions, and his wife and child live in Paris). Foreign trained/funded (Saudi, Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian, EU, UN, etc.) anti-Israeli militant groups (Hamas, Hezbolla, etc.) gained in power relative to Arafat's Fatah/Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, and jockeyed for money/media attention/kill counts. After consolidating political power (but unable or unwilling to consolidate military power), Arafat became merely a relatively visible figurehead for Palestinian ambitions, a terrorist with an address (a bad place to be in 4th generation warfare). Towards the end, his administrative offices in ruins from various Israeli/terrorist stand off situations, the Israeli and US govt.'s concluded that Arafat wasn't worth negotiating with, since he either couldn't or wouldn't deliver peace for territorial concessions, and Israel began to unilaterally establish national boundaries (via the wall) and to disengage from the occupied territories.
A slightly more sympathetic assessment could draw Arafat as a fighter willing to do the unthinkable for his cause (however one might define that), who was great at playing the media darling (Nobel Peace Prize?! WTF?!?!?!?! Though I suppose if they gave one to Kissinger, maybe sometimes it's a prize for Not Killing So Much Anymore, rather than Peace), but who sucked at administration, and who had to negotiate from a severe position of (military/economic/moral) disadvantage, making any gains he got at all really damn near miraculous.

J

Strawberry Parable

Buddha told a parable in a sutra:

A man traveling across a field encountered a tiger. He fled, the tiger
after him. Coming to a precipice, he caught hold of the root of a wild
vine and swung himself down over the edge. The tiger sniffed at him from
above. Trembling, the man looked down to where, far below, another tiger
was waiting to eat him. Only the vine sustained him. Two mice, one
white and one black, little by little started to gnaw away the vine.
Grasping the vine with one hand, he plucked the strawberry with the other.
How sweet it tasted!

Complaints Department

Hi folks!

So I've written three posts that were eaten by Blogspot (my web host) since yesterday-- grrrr. So I apologize for light blogging. Gonna be that way anyways on weekends, I reckon.

Also, if you feel hesitant (like my mother) to add comments because you'd have to register, and you don't like the idea of handing out your email address, just go ahead and email me your thoughts, and I'll post them in for you. You can find my email by clicking on the "view my complete profile" link.

Cheerio!

Mookie

Why American's Hate Democrats

Wow.

Read this.

Wow some more.

Let's start with the obvious-- it would be completely wrong, of course, to accept that this vitriolic assessment of red state citizens could describe all Bush supporters or even all Republicans. Lumping all Bush supporters in with the Christian Right (which is obviously who Smiley has a beef with) is a mistake. There are plenty of social progressives that I know of who supported Bush and who made well reasoned arguments for doing so. I simply cannot endorse such a sweeping and harsh characterization of millions of people like this. And I cannot believe she's suggesting (as are these guys) that we go back to the civil war era to get at the ancestral roots of supposed Right-wing cruelty. Let me ask you this-- if they're so stupid and evil and hate us so much, why do they now have Democratic governors in Montana, Arizona, Wyoming, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Maine, Louisiana, and Kansas? For that matter, if they're so stupid and evil, why did we elect Republican governors in California, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Maryland?

Additionally, although the fact that we Democrats lost five of the last seven presidential elections does seem pretty bad, it's just patently ridiculous to suggest the party's over. Since there's so few of them, let's go through and look at the elections case by case. Reagan vs. Carter was pretty close, and it's not like our guy was a stunning success in the White House. In 1984-- yes, we got our arses handed to us. We're still recovering, apparently. In '88, let's face it-- Dukakis was pretty lame, and it still wasn't exactly a sweep. But in 1992 we learned our lesson and beat an incumbent president with a centrist, inclusive, issue-focused candidate and campaign. Who knew? 1996 went our way very handily with the same themes. Some would argue that we didn't actually lose in 2000-- the election was botched and the presidency snatched by the more aggressive campaign. Regardless, we had the bad fortune of having Nader running full force that year, which, quite simply, lost us that election. And in the last election we saw unprecedented party unity against an incumbent, war-time president, and we lost by a mere 100,000 votes or so. Meanwhile, things in Congress haven't been great, granted, but the Senate has been split pretty evenly, with some recent losses favoring the Republicans, but those were all in areas that favored the Republicans a whole lot, anyway. Next time, it'll be our turn. The point is, it's been close, and it's still pretty close. The sample of election results is way too small to be of value, and I see no reason at all to panic. So a better question to ask might be, "why are Democrats such self-pitying, hate-mongering losers?"

Here's the bigger problem-- even if this wildly over-the-top characterization of the Christian Right has some elements of truth to it-- do we really want to go there? After all, these are our neighbors, our countrymen, our own family members-- genuinely good people, often-- do we really want to collectively write them all off as a blight on humanity? Is there any chance at all that abandoning reason, taking sides in a culture war, alienating Christian moderates, and insulting the opposition will help the Democratic party? The answer is clearly no. Instead, we need to apply a little more reason and get back to the issues, deliver centrist candidates, and fight them harder on their own turf. If we go Smiley's route, we will most certainly succeed only at fanning the very feelings of hate towards the Democrats that she seems so stressed out about. She isn't offering a "dialogue" at all-- it's the end of dialogue. Come on, folks-- rise up to the occasion.

Ikea Causes Shopping Riot in Phoenix

Ikea opened in Phoenix yesterday with an offer to give all the furniture on the cover of their latest catalog to the first customer who comes in. So a guy camped out in front of the store for like a week to score the big prize. Ikea also offered free chairs to the first 100 customers who showed up. Apparently 25,000 people in Phoenix have absolutely nowhere to sit. The traffic around the store got so bad, the police had to close off the nearest highway exit. Store officials say they will be completely wiped out of inventory within two weeks, unless they start working their little Swedish elves around the clock. Poor little buggers.

Jesusland

The following discussion is pieced together from an email exchange between my cousin Jonathan, a friend named Layli, and myself. The topic? "Jesusland." Enjoy.

Jonathan starts:

A perhaps timely response from Jesusland can be read here:

[Sad American]

As a social liberal, I tend to be somewhat dismissive of social moderates & theocons m'self, but perhaps Kerry was on to something re: the NASCAR vote that other Democratic boosters failed to follow through on. It's difficult to simultaneously hold someone in contempt and request their support, no?

Bush/Rove was smart to reach out to Hispanic and Black voters, and show them how some conservative policies could help them specifically (while taking a lot of, perhaps justifiable, scorn and derision in the process), and humbly ask for their vote. He certainly didn't win a majority of them over, just enough to make a difference in some places.

Layli responds:

I'd like to discuss politics with you more, Jonathan, email me at my gmail account...but I read that link, and the comments, and I really, really struggled with it.
I agree with moderate Republicans when they claim to be insulted by suggestions that they are dumb, ill-informed, etc. And definitely, southerners have valid complaints against northern arrogance (and vice versa)...and I agree that public discourse is in the crapper. But...
I may be wearing the "tinfoil hat" as they say, but it looks to be a bit of a ruse:
It's hard for me to believe that this person honestly believed she would get calm,reasoned analysis of the issues from a source like Air America, rather than going to less biased outlets for information on John Kerry - like his website. If that's true, then maybe she deserves the label of a little dim or blind. This makes the post suspect.
She expressed belief in stereotypical profiles of democrats as people who "hate the rich" and disdain or dismiss the risks associated with entrepreneurship. This is a belief generally held by a partisan, not a so-called moderate.
"She" pretty much replicated the GOP Spin on Kerry: Kerry couldn't articulate his ideas; Kerry's positions on Iraq were confusing; Kerry thinks terrorism is a police matter; Kerry's "global test"; left wing opinionists represent the true voice of the Democratic party." and could not produce a comprehensive, reasoned analysis on the issues, other than "I understand W. W is decisive. W is a good man."
But the kicker was that Instapundit (rightwing nut) linked to her, thus causing an avalanche of internet buzz - when the blog was only created on Nov. 5 - no profile, no previous postings, etc. This makes it even more suspicious. A person who never posted before would find it very hard to get that much attention from such a buzzmaker as Instapundit. Unless Instapundit knew something about her beforehand.
The comments were far more elucidative, however. I think they revealed more about the web blogging political arena than the majority of voters. Few could easily be rendered as "swing voters."

Jonathan replies:

It's certainly reasonable to treat everything on the net with a healthy dollop of suspicion(with the exception of cousin Mookie's new blog http://themookblog.blogspot.com/ - you rule, Mook!) , but that said, there's no doubt in my mind that the ideas articulated by the author of SadAmerican don't have some validity (certainly as a response to "Jesusland", for Darwin's sake). I think I (respectfully) disagree with you on the suspicious blogs angle. Cui Bono? Who benefits from this? SadAmerican may be using talking Republican points because she's a Republican media construct, designed to trick the Democrats into, uh, having respect for and reaching out to moderate midwestern religious types (though I'm not sure I can picture Karl Rove twirling his Evil Villain Moustache (TM) on this one - how does this serve Republican partisan advantage?), or ... she may be familiar with those talking points because she, ah, is a Republican. I could also be wrong on this.

I thought about what troubled me so much about the borders map, and it's this: I think.
it's far more likely, to my perhaps overly Machiavellian brain, that the map of Jesusland would be a Republican construct - the suggestion of the coast's secession to Canada just re-enforces the Right wing meme that Leftists hate America. Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse on this, but responding to an electoral loss with arrogant condescension, coastal elitism, and nakedly anti-Christian contempt... yeah, that's a winning Progressive strategy, sure to unite the country . Similarly, if the Left continues to to be too smug and superior to people who we disagree with on some issues (who are, after all, all evil or ignorant) to form cooperative "big tent" tactical alliances, or at least stop insulting their intelligence/motives, it'll really kill the Democratic party in the near term. This lack of humility and lack of respect for differences of opinion is, I think, a sign of political immaturity.

I do agree with you that the SadAmerican author shouldn't have gone to Air America looking for reasoned discourse, and that that does seem suspiciously naive. I personally don't have much use for Moore or Fox News , Limbaugh or Air America, Vdare/NRO or Znet/Common Dreams - I think they're too partisan to give me anything resembling the full information required to have an informed opinion, but they seem to be popular among their various, ah, target audiences. This reminds me of the guy in a Frankencarrot outfit ranting to reporters about the dangers of GMOs. Regardless of the merits of his opinions, or the attention he gets, he's still his own worst enemy in getting his message out (unless his real message is "Hi! I'm really into cosplay!") - a guy in a Frankencarrot outfit's just not a credible messenger. To each their own. I think Instapundit (pro-civil liberties, pro-gay marriage, pro-research, pro-choice, pro-hawk, quite proud of his Nigerian sister-in-law, etc.) is a socially liberal Centrist hawk, you think he's Right Wing, so our different opinions of him may just be due to honest differences in political perspective/orientation. He's likely far to the Right of you, maybe not so far for me, though I don't universally agree with him.

Look. I voted for Kerry, but I didn't like him. I found him aloof, purposefully ambiguous on the WoT to keep from alienating his Leftist base and the pro-defence center (but inept when he was clear - at least to my at least equally naive armchair global strategist eyes), and an altogether unlikable East Coast billionaire plutocrat - a Bob Dole for the Democrats, if you will, only with much more unearned wealth. I'm not a Republican, but many of these criticisms easily map onto the Right wing criticisms of Kerry. I still voted for him though, because I support the Democratic party's domestic social policies (pro-choice, pro-research, relatively more fiscal responsibility and a slightly better civil liberties position than the R's, etc.), and figured Kerry'd lack the will or political power (particularly in a divided government) to screw up foreign policy too badly once he was sitting at the grown-ups table.

That said, a 3% loss is (in my opinion) neither the political meltdown of the Democratic party that triumphalist Republicans are crowing over, nor is it (apparently) the sinister machinations of automated voting machines or due to increased voter turnout over anti-gay initiatives that some of the Lefty crowd is spreading. Michael Totten (a socially liberal atheist hawk, FWIW http://michaeltotten.com/ )'s got links to the stats on this, if you're interested.

And now me:

Hi there!

Jonathan, thanks for looping me in, and thanks for plugging my blog! Did I mention my blog?
I've got to back up Jonathan on the idea that Sad American was, in all likelihood, not faked. There's no special reason to believe that Instapundit, Rove, or other Right wing operatives have the time or the inclination to manufacture a long blog post that would score them such limited political value. And even if they did, everything she says is pretty much exactly what I'd expect from a Bush-leaning swing voter. Whoopdeedoo. The proof is in the pudding, and I can't even find the pudding, here!

But I'm not sure I agree entirely with Jonathan on the "Jesusland" border map issue. Sure, calling Red country Jesusland is no way to win over moderate right-leaning Christians out there-- of course. But you won't hear leaders of the Democratic party talk like that-- this is the voice of frustration in the undercurrent of people on the Left and the Right who feel like the real issues of the election were high-jacked by Born-Again Christians; in fact, Kerry worked way, way harder at reaching out across the values gap to guys like this than did Bush toward people with more liberal values. Kerry constantly spoke of his respect for the viewpoints of people who opposed abortion, and he staked out a position on gay marriage that meshes with the majority of Americans. For X' sake, he went goose-hunting a week before the election. Time and time again he cited the fact that he was unwilling to legislate his values; Bush, on the other hand, called and continues to call for a Constitutional Ammendment banning gay marriage. It's an intensely divisive tact that appeals to a narrow Right-wing base with values that, A) do not mesh with the majority of Americans and, B) do not bear relevance to the critical issues facing the country today (we're at War, folks), and, C) clearly cannot be resolved easily through dialogue, reason, or gestures of good will, and, D) should not be resolved out of the White House-- according to, for example, Dick Cheney always and George Bush in the 2000 debates. So what you're seeing with this "Jesusland" map is, as I said, the voice of an undercurrent of real frustration amongst Americans with what happened on the issues with this election. Because they see issues that need to be addressed by our government, the same issues that most Americans for years have been discussing-- The War on Terror, the War in Afghanistan, the War in Iraq, relations with Iran and North Korea, the economy, our health care, our education system, social security, the sciences, the environment-- sound familiar? These issues lost due to a minority population bum-rushing the polls to vote on fringe issues that were deliberately trumped up by this President in order to divide and conquer. Here's the result as posted by the Political Wire today:

November 11, 2004

Born Again Christians Were a Big Factor in Election
The Los Angeles Times notes that a new poll "found that born-again Christians voted for Bush over Kerry by a 62% to 38% margin." But the most striking statistic is that "although the born-again population constituted 38% of Americans, it represented 53% of the votes cast in the election."The survey also notes "if the born again public had shown up proportional to its population size, Senator Kerry would have won the election by the same three-point margin of victory enjoyed by Mr. Bush."

I still believe very strongly that the Left (and the Moderate Right) should absolutely respect the views of this vocal minority, as they did so well during the election. Your feeling in that respect is right on, I think. But respect is a two way street, and you can hardly blame the rest of America for feeling a little bit (and light-heartedly) irritated at being captive to the whims of Born-Again Christians right now.

War Games

This is positively brilliant, truly hilarious, and highly insightful reading. Hat tip to my dear cousin, Jonathan.

Lou Tran Responds

Lout Tran, another good friend, and a law student, has this to say on "Guns in America":

Mooks, I would like to respond to Russ's comment on gun manufacturer liability. I would say, generally, gun manufacturers should be held accountable for crimes committed when the gun serves no other purpose but crime. For instance, there are specific classes of guns that the courts have determined are used for nothing but crimes and have subsequently banned while holding the manufacturer accountable for tort liability. Exhibit A: 27. Kelley v. R.G. Industries, Inc., 304 Md. 124, 497 A.2d 1143, 54 USLW 2195, 44 A.L.R.4th 563. The Kelley case was a landmark case where the courts held the gun manufacturer of ".38 specials " accountable under strict liability principles (meaning the gun was abnormally dangerous to the public and wasn't used for anything else but crime).Leave it to the courts to determine which guns should have strict liability attached to them...

Lou

Acupuncture Point of the Day, 11/11/04

Lung-1, or "Zhongfu," meaning "Middle Palace."

Today's acupuncture point is called "Zhongfu," and it is the first point on the Hand Tai Yin channel. The Hand Tai Yin channel is associated with and connected to the Lung. This means that a lot (but certainly not all) of its indications and functions will correspond to conditions of the Lung. Channels are often called after their associated organ here in the West; hence, this point is usually called "Lung-1."

This point is located laterosuperiorly to the sternum, 1 cun (pronounced "soon"-- it's a Chinese inch equal to about the width of your thumb knuckle)-- below "Yunmen" (Lung-2), at the level of the first intercostal space, 6 cun lateral to the anterior midline. Got that? It means it's on your chest off to the side, kinda under your shoulder.

You can needle it to a depth of about .5-.8 of a cun, but you must needle laterally-- going straight in risks puncturing the Lung.

"What's it do?" I hear you ask. Well let me tell you-- first of all, it's the Front Mu point of the Lung, meaning it has a very direct affect on the Lung itself. It's main job is to relieve all kinds of "excess" Lung conditions, especially "heat"; that is, coughing, phlegm in the lungs, burning pain in the Lungs, throat, or nose, shortness of breath, wheezing, that kinda thing. A general sense of "too much" going on with the Lung. Additionally, it has a strong action of descending the Lung Qi and Stomach Qi, which helps keep air moving in and keeps your food moving down. In TCM, the Lung has a lot to do with the skin, so you can use this point to treat excess conditions of the skin, too. Finally, on a psycho-emotional note, it is said that this point helps restore the connection between the Heart and the Lung, which can be brought on by abuse, and is usually exhibited by people who act like they are "lost lambs."

In terms of its overall importance and value, I give it four stars out of ten.

And that's Zhongfu!

Introducing: The Acupuncture Point of the Day!

As some of you may know, I am currently a student of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) at the Phoenix Institute of Herbal Medicine and Acupuncture. What I'm trying to tell you is, when I'm blogging, I really should be studying. But, genius that I am, I have discovered a way to do both at the same time! I thought to myself this morning-- "Self-- there are 365 acupuncture points on the body. Not coincidentally, (everything in TCM is linked to the cosmos around us), there are 365 days in the year. I need to study everyday to learn them. I like to write in my blog everyday. Hey!"

Thus, I would like to introduce to you a new feature on this . . . errr, new blog, for yours and my own edifying pleasure:

The Acupuncture Point of the Day!

We will go through the points in order, starting with the Hand Tai Yin channel, which is associated with and linked to the Lung, and then following it as it connects to its paired channel, Hand Yang Ming, which will in turn link to another channel, and this will go on in order as it does around the body, creating one big giant connected channel made up of twelve distinct channels, all together. Of course, there are some extraneous channels that we'll have to go over, and on a leap year, maybe we'll touch on some of the extra points (points that lie outside the channels) as well. Fun fun, eh?

If you're already lost, no problem! This is really for my benefit more than it is for yours, anyway! But I'll do my best to break things down along the way, and if you need some online resources to help you out, I'll offer those, too-- starting with this great site right here.

On to our first point!

Guns in America

My good friend, Russ, has asked:

Do you agree or disagree that American firearm manufacturers who sell a legal
product that is not defective should be sued if a criminal uses their products
in a crime?

Russ comments:

No one supports fanciful litigation... It's hard to say if my aversion to this
is simply ingrained cultural tolerance -- gun companies shouldn't be expected to
account for how people use their products... Is it a weapon of death or
marksmanship? Do liability arguments draw inquisitions of Swords? Baseball bats?
Does this boil down to what is in *spirit of gun use*. I wouldn't mind seeing a
legislative or social movement compelling the gun industry to register their
customers, let alone strengthening municipal tracking of firearms...I'm not sure
how much of the federal mechanisms still exists since Bush/Ashcroft decided such
laws requiring local records compromise individual rights to privacy.

Well, Russ, I'm no expert on this issue (or, err, any issues, really)-- but I'm happy to speak to it anyway! Seems to me that litigation as you described it is definitely not the answer, here, for the very reason you cited-- it would be entirely unfair to hold the lead-pipe, rope, candlestick, or the revolver industries accountable for what Professor Plum did with their products to one or thousands of people across the country. It's just not fair. At the same time, America clearly needs to take a good hard, honest look at our problem with gun violence and take some basic measures to prevent it. I believe there are countless under explored opportunities to create harmony and reduce criminal gun violence in our communities-- from teaching peace studies and values in our classrooms, to waging some love on poverty, and most especially by changing the way we deal with prisoners and people that we already know have a high likelihood of repeatedly committing these kinds of crimes. My sense is that the real solution lies in adjusting our values and liberalizing our efforts at caring, and that's always a harder fix in the practical sense, but doable nonetheless.

However, if you want to know the truth, I 'm not sure I hold with most people on the Left who think the Second Amendment should not be interpreted as the right to own powerful automatic weapons, or that people who want to own these weapons should have to get a license or submit to a background check before purchasing these products. There's many a good argument for a well-armed citizenry. It makes the idea of invading our country really, really unpalatable, for example. It means that if our own government decides to go martial law on us for reasons that clearly defy liberal principles, or in the highly unlikely but not impossible event that our country gets taken over by a fascist regime, then we as a people have some resources to challenge the bad guys. Can you imagine having to file for a license or a background check with the very government you are at war with? Of course, God forbid that any kind of conflict like that may happen in this country, ever-- but if He doesn't, (and history is replete with examples like the ones I'm talking about where He didn't), then give me a rifle that shoots as many bullets as possible at the enemy, please. (Of course, there are many problems with this line of thinking. For example, can the general public then also own tanks? Missiles? Battleships? That's a discussion I'm willing to have, if anyone wants to go there . . . hint, hint, I have a comments section beneath this, and every, post).

I think the bottom line is, this nation's citizenry is already very well armed. There are more gun shops in this country than there are gas stations, I've heard. As I've already mentioned, I see the real problems as centered around social and value-based issues-- not with the guns themselves.

Arafat

Who was this guy? A Noble Peace Prize-winning dignitary of freedom, or a monster who practically invented modern-day terrorism? Thoughts?

Here's a lenghty but well written bio on the guy from the Washington Post-- it's full of interesting tid-bits (he gave himself the name "Yasser" which means "easygoing" in Arabic), but I don't think it really answers my question. Surprisingly, it's hard to find anyone in the blogosphere commenting on his death at all, and almost no one comes out on either side of the question with any hard facts.

Here's the BBC on what comes next for Palestine.

Democracy vs. What We Have

Here's a nice piece by Slate on the Electoral College-- one of a whole series I recommend. You'll find the rest of the articles linked at the bottom of this one.

Putting it in Perspective

From Politcal News Daily:

Solders killed in Iraq to date (20 mths): 1,131
Chicago murder rate in 2002-2003 (24 mths): 1,197

Healing the Country

From Taegen Goddard's Political Wire:

The election is over, the results are now known.
The will of the people has clearly been shown.
We should show by our thoughts, our words and our deeds
That unity is just what our country needs.
Let's all get together.
Let bitterness pass.
I'll hug your elephant.
You kiss my ass.

More Legislating Life and Death

Killing Oregon's assisted-suicide law?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=240964&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Your National Debt Update

FYI: The National Deficit as of 11 Nov 2004 at 08:07:36 AM GMT is:

$7 trillion, 436 billion, 827 million, 393 thousand, 140 dollars and 76 cents.

The estimated population of the United States is 294,767,647-- so each citizen's share of this debt is $25,243.03.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of$1.61 billion per day since September 30, 2003.

Courtesy of Brilig.com.

More Relief

Slate agrees:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2109203/

Legislating Life and Death

• Should assisted suicide be against the law?
• Should abortion be against the law?
• Should the death penalty be against the law?
• Should stem cell research be against the law?

How do you stand on these issues? Do you vote based on these issues? When you look at these questions, do you find yourself at all conflicted? I'm just curious. Do you have a unified theory that resolves all of these issues in one tidy bumber-sticker sound-bite? If you don't, why not? Aren't you being just a bit indecisive? Is it really so complex?

I mean, killing = bad, right? You have rights over your own body, right? If I'm inside your uterus, do you get to kill me? If the State wants to kill you, shouldn't you have the right to kill yourself first? If you're against abortion because it's killing a helpless captive, shouldn't you also be against the death penalty? If you think the State has the right to kill you, shouldn't you have the right to kill it back? If you have the right to kill your fetus, then why don't I have the right to kill you for doing it? Is killing a life in your body okay but killing a killer in society not okay? If the State wants me to commit suicide, do I have to? If the State gives me the right to commit suicide, but I'm pregnant, do I lose that right? Who is the State? How many people makes up the State? When am I not the State? If the State wants me to give birth to a child, do I have to? Can I chose to get pregnant? If I chose to get pregnant, but I don't get pregnant, does my choice matter? Does the State get to decide how many children I have? If you're my mom, do you get to kill me? If so, why does that right go away when I'm born? Why doesn't my father get to choose? If my mother has the right to decide whether or not I am to be conceived, isn't that the same as my mother deciding whether or not I live or die? If I'm pregnant, how many people am I? If I'm three or more people, am I a State unto myself? If you don't know when I became alive, how can I have a date of death? If I can't survive outside of your body, and your uterus spontaneously aborts me, should there be a murder investigation? Should your body be tried as a killer? Isn't your uterus a danger to future unborn babies? Should the State get to issue you a license to conceive? Should the State be responsible for all conception? When do I get to pick what State I live in? If I haven't chosen my State, why does it get to chose me? Can a fetus chose to commit suicide? Can a fetus chose to do anything? Is consciousness required for life to exist? Is conception the creation of life? What was there before that life? Death? Do the sperm and egg cells count as life unto themselves? Do they get to chose whether or not to conceive? Are they conscious? Is the State conscious? Is the State alive? If not, how can a non-living thing get to decide the fate of living things? If it is alive as a collective entity like the body is alive as a collective entity? If that's so, then shouldn't the State get to decide what happens to its own body? Can the State commit suicide? Who gets to decide if the State dies? If all mothers refuse to conceive, are they responsible for the death of our State? Can we kill them for that? When is killing okay, mommy? When was I alive to you, mommy? Was I alive in your tummy? When was I not alive?

How come some brilliant philosopher hasn't solved all these questions for us ages ago? I mean, some of these questions are really really old! Why didn't Aristotle answer this one, or Jesus, or John Locke? Were these questions just not that important back then? Come on-- I need answers.

So here's your homework: write a law that decides on all of these issues with only one simple rationale. Due tomorrow. Good luck. Oh yeah, and don't forget to cover cloning.

Uganda's War on Children

This is really hard to fathom:

As the world finally turns its gaze toward the horrors in Darfur, an
equally terrible situation in northern Uganda continues to go unnoticed. The
actions of a fanatical rebel movement, the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), have
displaced more than 1.6 million people in northern and eastern Uganda, a number
even higher than in Darfur.

Where else in the world do we see the kidnapping of children in attacks
targeting boys and girls? Not long ago, I witnessed firsthand the suffering of
families in northern Uganda, and I found it more shocking than anything I had
seen in visits to conflict areas. More than 20,000 children have been kidnapped,
including 12,000 since 2002. This is a conflict fought by, with and against
children. More than 80 percent of the LRA forces are children. They are forced
to become child soldiers or sex slaves to their commanders.

Read the rest of the article, then call or write your congressman. I did.

Unbelievable

Check this out:

With 'Scramjet,' NASA Shoots for Mach 10
By Guy Gugliotta, Washington Post Staff Writer, Wednesday, November 10, 2004; Page A01
HAMPTON, Va. -- They call it a "scramjet," an engine so blindingly fast that it could carry an airplane from San Francisco to Washington, D.C., in about 20 minutes -- or even quicker.

20 minutes! I take poops for longer than 20 minutes! For the rest of the article, click here.

Car Karma Question

So, a few weeks ago my sister came into town for a visit. We decided to make a day trip up to the Grand Canyon, which is about a four hour drive from here (here being Phoenix, AZ). On the way up, out in the middle of the desert, the tread on our front right tire exploded! The flying tire shreds ripped all this wiring out from under the hood, too. We figured out that the wires were connected to our front headlights, taped them to the hood of the car, changed the tire out for a donut, and cruised up to the next town. We found a very nice mechanic there who fixed the wiring problem for us right on the spot for pennies, and then sent us on up the road to the next town for new tires. The tire shop was closed, but there was a mechanic there working on his motorcycle on his day off, and he agreed without hesitation to sell us some new tires and change them for us. We ended up buying two new tires, since the other front tire looked like it was ready to blow as well. The two back tires were only a year old. Anyway, a few hours of inconvenience later, we headed back out onto the highway and made it to the Grand Canyon just in time for one of the most spectacular sunsets ever.

Here's the funny thing. Last week, my friends Russell and Sharon were in town, so I decided to take them on a day trip up to the Grand Canyon. We're driving up the highway as happy as can be, when my back left tire goes flat. Ran over a nail. So we (that is, Russ) changed it for a donut, cruised up the road to the next exit (on the advice of a friendly policeman who pulled over to help us out), found a tire shop, bought a new tire (the punctured one couldn't be saved), had them put it on, and then headed back out onto the road, making it to the Grand Canyon just in time for another spectacular sunset.

So the question is, do I have bad tire karma or bad Grand Canyon karma?

Either way, I appear to have good roadside assistance karma as well as some awfully good sunset karma, which easily makes up for either. I've got another trip to the Grand Canyon planned when my wife's family comes out for Thanksgiving-- I'll keep you posted.

The Mookblogger at the Grand Canyon, 11/05/04. Taken by Russ Klein. 

My Mantras

I am now a perfect human being.

I am now perfectly enlightened.

I am now a living buddha.

All living beings are the Buddha.

Here's your Economy Corner Update! Yeah!

The economy is just about the most boring thing imaginable, but its probably the thing that affects your life more than anything else, as meta-issues go. But now, at long last, you have "The Mookblog's Economy Corner Update!" Exciting economic news delivered to you once a week in a way that will keep you coming back for more!

THIS WEEK . . . .

Our economy is looking pretty darn good!

--So says the Conservative Truth Squad in this piece on job creation. Yay!

--Here's why, according to the Christian Science Monitor: "Productivity growth is slowing - it was up only 1.9 percent in the third quarter - so companies have to start hiring people." Hurray for slacking on the job!

--The Federal Reserve has been steadily ramping up interest rates-- and that's a good thing! Take this fun quiz on the Fed and how it affects you!

--The price of oil is finally coming down on news that supplies are on the rise. Yummy!

--On the Stock Market:

Bulls saw a three-week run that culminated with last Friday's strong October
payrolls report. That advance put the Dow and Nasdaq near new yearly highs and
set the S&P 500 at a more than 2-1/2 year high.

Go Bulls!

--Wow! Some awesome post-election economic analysis! I love it!

--Uh oh! The value of the dollar is dropping like crazy! But don't worry:

A depreciation in the dollar is usually welcomed by U.S. businesses because it
makes U.S. goods relatively cheaper both at home and in global markets. Just a
few years ago, U.S. manufacturers were lobbying the administration to take steps
to weaken the dollar.

Fall, dollar, fall! :)

One fish, two fish . . .

If you've ever looked at those political maps of the United States that show a sea of red states with some tiny blue patches around the edges and wondered "How was this election close at all?" then wonder no more. Check out these groovy new versions that put things into perspective. Hat tip Andrew Sullivan.

Responses to "Relief"

Check out these two excerpts from readers commenting on my earlier post titled "Relief." Read them back to back, and tell me you don't see that there's a massive and fundamental understanding gap going on in this country between Bush and Kerry supporters-- I dare you.

Kerry supporter:

The thing that I can't get over is how many people voted for George W. Bush. I
mean I stop and ask why and how those people could have done that? And sooo many
of them! And after all that has happened! And that saddens me so deeply because
of what it says about this country. Either they are greedy, they live in fear,
they are judgmental and closed-minded, they are uneducated, they are ignorant,
they are self-righteous, or some combination of these sorts of things. I know
that there may be the occasional case in which for example a Jew feels so
strongly about Israel that they vote solely on the basis of Bush's stance on
Israel, but for the most part I am afraid that this is just the conclusion I
have to come to on people's stances.I mean, how can a person say he is voting
for Bush because he is a "fiscal conservative" and leave it at that? Basically
what that means is that this voter places his fiscal values above civil rights,
above the basic integrity and competence of our leadership, etc. etc. etc. That
is a sad, sad state!How can a person vote on the basis of not wanting to allow
for legal same sex marriage? Keeping loving people from having basic rights is
more important than having a leader who will help ensure that the sick have
health care? Or better yet, not allowing for abortion is more important than
providing health care, making assault weapons illegal, and preventing the
execution of those on death row who were wrongly accused? And is money more
important than all of these??

Bush supporter:

You know Mook, as much as I care about you, I can't help but think the
obvious resentment and anger you hold towards "the right" is feeding the very
big problem we have in this country of being most undecidedly UN-united. Your
tone disappoints me very much. We are not evil because our views are different.
As a matter off act, you might find some of us have the same views, but think
the resolutions are different. I have a right to think differently. And for the
record, I did not hate Kerry. I actually had second thoughts about my vote at
one point. He was an OK guy, I just disagreed with some of his views. I don't
hate him or people that voted for him-- I just disagreed with him on a few
issues that were a priority for me.

I am no Jesus freak, but I do
go to mass and participate in the church. Since when did seeking out
spirituality through traditional ways become a bad thing? (I'm referring to the
"jesusland comment". I know you aren't saying YOU believe that, but I'm still
commenting on it). Seems anything that is not in direct line an absolute secular
society is deemed evil these days. Isn't that one of our rights? To practice our
religions as we see fit? So, just for an example, don't I have a right to vote
against a party that supports what I might believe is plain old murder
(abortion) if that's what I believe?

I did not think we should go
into Iraq, but now that we are there I think we should stick it out and not
leave until things are as stable as we can get them (even if that takes years).
I am FOR moderate gun control. I want a resolution to the social security issue,
I believe in gay rights. I am not evil, or worng, or out to restrict
anyone's freedom because I consider myself a bit more conservative.