Sunday, August 27, 2017

Feeling bloggy again...

Well, hello, my old friend....

So this is something I haven't done in... haven't checked for the exact date... I'm guessing 12 years?

Why come back now?

I find I still want to jot down thoughts, share my worldview, express real ideas, challenge my own perspective, challenge the perspective of others, seek the truth, share in wisdom, catalog my daily musings and revelations, and offer a space for others to do the same.

In short, I want to blog. I want to share an open journal.

I think life took me away from blogging. My wife at the time made me feel a bit guilty about writing when I should have been busy studying. She wasn't wrong. My school work did really need my attention, and that's where my attention turned. And then to my career, and then to my child, etc. And by all measure, I haven't the time to write now, and could feel guilty about doing so, given my work and parenting demands, but I don't find much use for guilt these days...

I also think Facebook kinda stole the show. Who needs to blog, when we were all suddenly in the same place, checking the same feed. Our thoughts could just go there, and that's basically what happened. At least, for a while...

But not everyone on Facebook wants to share deeper, more meaningful discussion. A poem looks out of place, now, alongside photos of kids and videos of people on vacation. And there are so many people on your feed, it somehow loses its intimacy. Your friends list starts to include people you barely know. The level of actual discourse on politics, science, sociology, or spirituality becomes shallow, snippy, snarky, and trollish. The whole site became one giant TL;DR.

Facebook actually became so big, that creating a blog where the whole internet can find you is can actually feel more anonymous!

Anonymity... I think I will maintain a bit. I haven't checked the settings, but I'm hoping there's an option to keep this blog private. I will invite those who want to share, discuss, rant, etc. I'm not totally decided on that, but I think its best if its a safe space, a private forum. Or we can just keep names private. Something along those lines.

So here's to kicking off a better place to share. For those people I know and love who want to do better sharing.

I wonder if people who've subscribed to this blog in the past will get a notice once I post this?

Let's find out...

Monday, June 06, 2005

Crickey!

Did Michael Crichton (famous guy, writes "thrillers" that turn into movies that suck, but I liked the dinosaurs) just debunk the entire environmental movement?

Have a read of a review of his new book "State of Fear" by Reason.

Here's yer link:

http://www.reason.com/0505/cr.rb.the.shtml

Whether he did or didn't, a writer of Crichton's "caliber" is sure to have an impact with this controversial sure-to-be best-seller. I can hear the distant din of righteous sniggering and angry retorting already.

Personally, I think I'll read the book and then check his facts and look for some honest dialogue. Wish me luck! But I'm betting many of my friends and enemies (could someone please be my enemy? It would be cool to have a few die-hard Mook nemeses) already have acute opinionitis when it comes to the questions raised/"facts" stated. I'd like to hear them! (Silly me!)

Cheerio!

Mooks

Friday, February 25, 2005

Oh yeah-- my blog!

Errr.... . . . .


Well, what to say--


Funny, is life.


When I started this blog, I committed to writing in it regularly. I have apparently failed in my commitment to do so, and, what's more, I didn't even let you all know what was going on. I just up and disappeared. Kinda rude, actually. Sorry!

I guess life started happening so fast that I couldn't stop to comment on it. I tried to a few times, but by the time I had formulated a decent post on my life's or world happenings, the news was already hopelessly outdated. Plus I didn't feel like it-- something in me had changed. I found that I had stopped obsessing over the news, political commentary, or current events as I have done for years-- all of a sudden I just didn't care too much. I felt strangely detached from it all. Can't really explain why, but I think it has something to do with being much more present to the life I'm actually living, which I suppose is a good thing.

Anyway, excuses excuses . . . . the bottom line is, I should have posted something just to let everyone know where I was at. So, again, sorry about that!

Here's what I think-- life will be a little calmer, maybe, over the next month. My new business partner (see below) is going to take a few weeks to get her life in order, and we need to set up an office that can accommodate the both of us before we can really sink our teeth into things, so I should be a bit more available to post. But I am going to leave off of the old format of regular/daily posting and instead just jot down the occasional idea, poem, or tidbit as it hits me. That's all I can offer right now, I'm afraid. However, the Mookblog has turned into a nice community of voices, and I'm heartened to see some great posts from GT, Layli, and Russ while I was MIA-- thanks guys. With such a fine cast, I think that the Mookblog will continue to perform a valuable service as a forum for interesting thoughts and mookness all round, and I look forward to many more months (dare I say years?) of entertaining and insightful web logging.

Here's to keepin' the faith.

And now, a couple of updates for ya:

a) The Yakety Yak Wireless Store idea crashed and burned, but not before causing me to drop out of all but a few of my classes in anticipation of signing a lease that then slipped like sand through my fingertips.

b) My ex-neighbor has since hired me to work as a marketing consultant/loan processor for her mortgage brokering business. She's been mentoring me through the industry for the last few weeks (which has swallowed up much of my time as of late). Seems like a potentially lucrative arrangement, though we are still ironing out some contractual logistics.

c) I have acquired two lovely little kittens who introduce themselves as Charlie and Sammy. Charlie's a grey and white tabby with soft brown undertones, and Sammy is almost all black except that in the right light you can see that he has stripes. They are adorable and wonderful and I am highly allergic to them. Ah, how we suffer for love.

d) I have decided to give myself a new middle name: Christopher. I really really like it, it suits me very well, and I need a name that doesn't sound like Klingon to people I do business with. Don't worry, this hasn't now become the Chrisblog-- my first name remains Mukhtar, and I am still affectionately and oh so Mookely yours.

Cheerio!

Mookie

Friday, January 28, 2005

Man Pees His Way Out of Avalanche

Powered has asked that I post this enjoyable and also edifying news story.

Mooks

Monday, January 24, 2005

The 10 Worst Corporations of 2004

The 10 Worst Corporations of 2004
By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman

When the Multinational Monitor judges gather to pick the 10 worst corporations of the year, one of their instructions is: name no companies that appeared on the previous year's list (barring extraordinary circumstances).

For the 2004 list, that means no Bayer (even though in 2004 the company pushed for import of genetically modified rice into the European Union, polluted water in a South African town with the carcinogen hexavalent chromium, and was hit with evidence that its pain medication Aleve(naproxen) increases the risk of heart attack, among other egregious acts), no Boeing (despite new evidence that the tanker plane scandal costing U.S. taxpayers tens of billions of dollars is even worse than it appeared), no Clear Channel (even though the radio behemoth in 2004 stooped to new lows with a "Breast Christmas Ever" contest that promised to pay for breast implants for a dozen contest "winners"), and no Halliburton (embroiled in a whole new set of contracting fraud and bribery charges in 2004).

But at least the no-repeat rule helps limit the field a bit. And there remained plenty of worthy candidates. Of the remaining pool of price gougers, polluters, union-busters, dictator-coddlers, fraudsters, poisoners, deceivers and general miscreants, we chose the following -- presented in alphabetical order --as the 10 Worst Corporations of 2004 [full text available at www.multinationalmonitor.org]:

Abbott Laboratories:
Abbott makes the list for raising the price ofNorvir, an important AIDS drug, developed with a major infusion of U.S. government funds, by 400 percent. The price increase doesn't apply if Norvir is purchased in conjunction with another Abbott drug, giving Abbott an unfair advantage over competitors and tilting consumers to use the Abbott products on the basis of price.

AIG:
The world's largest insurer, American International Group Inc. (AIG) was charged in October with aiding and abetting PNC Financial Services in a fraudulent transaction to transfer $750 million in mostly troubled loans and venture capital investments from subsidiaries off of its books. AIG agreed to pay $126 million to resolve the charges, but it got off light, entering into a "deferred prosecution agreement" --meaning the charges against the company will be dropped in 12 months time if it abides by the terms of the agreement.

Coca-Cola:
Workers at the Coke bottling plant in Colombia have been terrorized for years by right-wing paramilitary forces. A fact-finding mission headed by a New York City Council member found, among other abuses, "there have been a total of 179 major human rights violations of Coca-Cola's workers, including nine murders. Family members of union activists have been abducted and tortured." Coke says it opposes the anti-union violence and in any case that it hasn't had control of the bottling plant (though it does now, after purchasing the Colombian bottling company). Coke's former general counsel, and the former assistant U.S. attorney general, Deval Patrick, resigned in 2004, reportedly in part because Coke refused to support an independent investigation into the Colombia allegations.

Dow Chemical:
The world's largest plastic maker, Dow purchased Union Carbide in 1999. At midnight on December 2, 1984, 27 tons of lethal gases leaked from Union Carbide's pesticide factory in Bhopal, India, immediately killing an estimated 8,000 people and poisoning thousands ofothers. Today in Bhopal, at least 150,000 people, including children born to parents who survived the disaster, are suffering from exposure-related health effects such as cancer, neurological damage, chaotic menstrual cycles and mental illness. Dow refuses to take any responsibility. In a statement, the company says, "Although Dow never owned nor operated the plant, we -- along with the rest of industry --have learned from this tragic event, and we have tried to do all we can to assure that similar incidents never happen again."

Glaxo Smith Kline: Following revelations and regulatory action in the UK in 2003 and 2004, the story of the severe side effects from Glaxo's Paxil (as well as other drugs in the same family) -- notably that they are addictive and lead to increased suicidality in youth -- finally broke in the United States in 2004. In June, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer filed suit against Glaxo, charging the giant drug makerwith suppressing evidence of Paxil's harm to children, and misleading physicians. Glaxo denied the charges, but agreed to a new system whereby it would make public results all of its clinical trials. In October, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ordered Glaxo and makers of drugs inPaxil's class to include a "black box" warning -- the agency's strongest-- with their pills.

Hardee's:
The fast-food maker is bragging about how unhealthy is its latest culinary invention, the Monster Thickburger: "First there were burgers. Then there were Thickburgers. Now Hardee's is introducing the mother of all burgers -- the Monster Thickburger. Weighing in at two-thirds of a pound, this 100 percent Angus beef burger is a monument to decadence." The Monster Thickburger is a 1,420-calorie sandwich. Eating one Thickburger is like eating two Big Macs or five McDonald's hamburgers. Add 600 calories worth of Hardee's fries and you get more than the 2,000 calories that many people should eat in a whole day, according to Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which calls the Thickburger "food porn."

Merck:
Dr. David Graham, a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug safety official, calls it "maybe the single greatest drug-safety catastrophe in the history of this country." Testifying before a Senate committee in November, Dr. David Graham put the number in the United States who had suffered heart attacks or stroke as result of taking the arthritis drug Vioxx in the range of 88,000 to 139,000. As many as 40 percent of these people, or about 35,000-55,000, died as a result, Graham said. The unacceptable cardiovascular risks of Vioxx were evident as early as 2000 -- a full four years before the drug was finally withdrawn from the market by its manufacturer, Merck, according to a study released by The Lancet, the British medical journal. Merck says it disclosed all relevant evidence on Vioxx safety as soon as it acquired it, and pulled the drug as soon as it saw conclusive evidence of the drug's dangers.

McWane:
McWane Inc. is a large, privately held Alabama-based sewer and water pipe manufacturer. In a devastating series, the New York Times revealed the company's egregious safety record, and the utter failure of regulatory agencies to control the company's workplace violence. Nine McWane employees have lost their lives in workplace accidents since 1995-- and three of the deaths were the result of deliberate company violations of safety standards. More than 4,600 injuries were recorded among the company's 5,000 employees. According to the Times, McWane pulled the wool over the eyes of investigators by stalling them at the factory gates, and then hiding defective equipment. Accident sites were altered before investigators could inspect them, in violation of federal rules. When government enforcement officials did find serious violations, the Times reported, "the punishment meted out by the federal government was so minimal that McWane could treat it as simply a cost of doing business."

Riggs Bank:
An explosive report from the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, issued in July, revealed that the Washington, D.C.-based Riggs Bank illegally operated bank accounts for former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, and routinely ignored evidence of corrupt practices in managing more than 60 accounts for the government of Equatorial Guinea. Although these and other activities seem to violate U.S. banking rules, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) did not take enforcement action against the bank after it learned of these matters in 2002. That presumably was not unrelated to the fact that the OCC examiner at Riggs soon thereafter went to work for Riggs. In May 2004, the bank paid $25 million in fines in connection with money-laundering violations related to the Equatorial Guinea and Saudi Arabian governments, and it is the subject of ongoing federal criminal investigations.

Wal-Mart:
While Wal-Mart is presently on a bit of a public relations defensive, the company remains the colossus of U.S. -- and increasingly global -- retailing. It registers more than a quarter trillion dollars in sales. Its revenues account for 2 percent of U.S. Gross Domestic Product. For two years running, Fortune has named Wal-Mart the most admired company in America. It is arguably the defining company of the present era. A key component -- arguably the key component -- of the company's business model is under compensating employees and externalizing costs on to society. A February 2004 report issued by Representative George Miller, D-California, tabulated some of those costs. The report estimated that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year -- about $2,103 per employee. These public costs include free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families, Section 8 housing assistance, federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, and federal contributions to health insurance programs for low-income children.

Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate CrimeReporter, <http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com>. Robert Weissman iseditor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor,<http://www.multinationalmonitor.org>, and counsel for EssentialInventions, a nonprofit involved in the pricing dispute discussed in theAbbott profile. Mokhiber and Weissman are co-authors of On the Rampage:Corporate Predators and the Destruction of Democracy (Monroe, Maine:Common Courage Press).(c) Russell Mokhiber and Robert WeissmanThis article is posted at:<http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/corp-focus/2005/000193.html>

Wednesday, January 19, 2005

Debating Torture

This from Andrew Sullivan today:

". . .we do know from Gonzales' documents released yesterday that the Bush administration wants to reserve the right to torture detainees for the CIA. Rice has also confirmed this. They refuse to specify what "coercive interrogation techniques" they are sanctioning for security reasons. They say they don't want to tip off al Qaeda. So we don't have a right to know if the government is practising torture as policy? I guess not. We have now crossed a line where the CIA can torture anyone they deem to be an enemy combatant, with no one outside the inner circle knowing, in places no one knows about. Isn't that worth debating?"

No, it's not worth debating Andrew. Some things are just wrong, period-- end of discussion. Rape, genocide, torture-- how do you defend these things intellectually? Take this administration to task, no questions asked. They need their feet held to the fire, and I do mean that metaphorically.

Okay, I'm not usually one to steam-roll discussion like that. But we all have our buttons, and torture really pushes mine, so to speak.

Here-- in my as yet most extreme act of intellectual openness, I present to you:

"In Defense of Terrorism," by Henry Mark Holzer.

Errr. . . enjoy.

The Mooklbog Welcomes Russ Klein!

Exciting news!

The Mookblog has just added another major player to the ranks of the mook-annointed ("Mookssiahs"? Oh, wow, that's bad-- I can't believe I'm going to leave that in here):

Congratulations Russ Klein!

Russ has been fueling discussion here at the Mookblog for some time already, acting as the number one contributor of hat-tipped links via email. I don't always agree with his politics, he being far more to the left than I, but all the more reason to grant him a voice here. He's wicked resourceful in a smackdown-- "you want sources, oh I'll give you sources!" being his motto. One thing's for sure, I know very few people with as great a gift for gab as has Russ, and I look forward to his word-smithing immensely. Russ, don't hold back.

Regarding my hack-job hazing in "GT Gets Served!"-- we'll not be nicknaming Klein as either "Squeaky" or "The Squealer" (or, despite my hopes, the compromise: "The Squeaker") afterall, since both names pissed him off (who'd a thunk?). The Snarktar has since apologized privately to his dear friend and will gladly do so here as well: "Sorry, there, Russ!"

Russ will be posting under the blogonym: "Corwyn." I have no idear why (and also think my nicknames were way cooler, FWIW. Insert winky-face here).

Welcome, Russ!

Food Fight!

I must say, I am enjoying this Brawl o' the Brainy immensely. The only thing hotter than a libertarian scientist and a public-interest NGO lawyer duking it out over federal regulation of genetically engineered foods is. . . well, really, nothing else comes to mind. Sexy!

Richard Caplan, U.S. PIRG's Clean Water and Food Safety Advocate, responds below to GeneThug's earlier post entitled: "Sniggering Little Men Wearing Latex Gloves" Respond (itself a response to "GT Gets Served.") Thread your way back, if you're new to the discussion-- this one's a doozy!

Enjoy!

***

I’ll respond briefly to GeneThug’s latest self-admitted mega-rant in the order he ranted it out.

First of all, I’m under no delusion that you’re under no regulatory burden, even though I have no idea who you are nor what you do. But your comment is entirely improper: you’re not developing genetically engineered crops and foods, are you? The analogy is therefore meaningless. Many fields are overregulated, many are properly regulated, many are underregulated, and some are unregulated. But comparing scientists doing job A to scientists doing a different jobB gets us nowhere. And you’re talking about writing a grant as regulation? Dancers write grants, are they regulated? NGOs write grants. Does writing a grant make you regulated? Again, your point is meaningless and off topic.

Sorry I didn’t provide links. Tracking down articles takes seconds, so I trust you’re capable.

You do not seem to understand the difference between: (a) the existence of something called a framework and (b) a regulation. They have a different legal significance. And as I said before, and am still right about, the FDA has no regulations in place regarding genetically engineered food. The Office of Science and TechnologyPolicy issued a paper in the 1980s called a Coordinated Framework, but the FDA never issued regulations under it, merely a Statement of Policy. This time I will refer you to a paper I wrote that can befound here: http://pirg.org/ge/GE.asp?id2=4781&id3=ge&

A link! Enjoy it.

Your next paragraph again misrepresents my point. I am not attacking science, nor the use of genetic engineering. I am not even attacking genetically engineered crops. I am merely pointing out the insufficiencies in oversight of genetically engineered crops. Good luck finding a cure for cancer. My job has nothing to do with you, and I don’t try to convince anyone about anything that you do.

I look forward to your “refutation” of the CSPI piece. You erroneously claim that I cherry picked a quote from it, but if you read my comments more carefully you’ll notice I didn’t quote the piece at all and that I also noted that CSPI supports biotech. But I look forward to your refutation regardless. How do I feel about this administration lying to the public and taking us to war for oil? Not so good.

Again, you then go back to comparing two different things entirely to try to make your point, which is intellectually dishonest. I don’tcare if you’re self-regulated, nor do I want to blow you, thank you very much. I’m not talking about the work you do. I’ll unground my assertions (and feed your need for links!): http://pirg.org/ge/reports/GERegulations.pdf
Enjoy. I look forward to another attempted refutation.

Then you pick a one paragraph LTE to refute a well-researched article. The LTE itself has an error (thanks for the link). Will we have to wait until people starve in the US?, it asks. What arrogance! People do starve in the US, in the land in which we supposedly have a food surplus and grow so many biotech crops. You said you’d refute the article. Please do. The LTE you quote is not a refutation.

You then claim that no one has gotten sick from a biotech food. You’re a scientist, right? Tell me: who has looked? That’s normally necessary to make a sweeping statement like that, right? The NAS said no one has looked at environmental impacts. Have you looked? The FDA doesn’t look at human health impacts. Have you looked? Why was Monsanto fined $1.5 million a few days ago for bribing officials so that they would not have to conduct tests in order to get their crops approved? Does that worry you? Here’s another link (boy, it is easy to provide them!): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4153635.stm

Then you’re back again to your personal experiences which, while fascinating I’m sure, are largely irrelevant to this discussion as you’re not employed by a company engaged in research on geneticallyengineered crops and foods. The Jane Brody piece does help your argument, but is filled with the same assertions I have been addressing throughout this message. You conclude with another nice misdirection, talking about other threats, all of them very serious. This is not a competition, about whether some threats should be addressed and some shouldn’t. Are there worse things in the world than genetically engineered crops? The answer to that question shouldn’t determine whether we deal with preventable risks from genetically engineered crops.

--Richard Caplan

Finite And Infinite Games 1.8

"If finite games must be externally bounded by time, space, and number, they must also have internal limitations on what the players can do to and with each other. To agree on internal limitations is to establish rules of play.

The rules will be different for each finite game. It is, in fact, by knowing what the rules are that we know what the games is.

What the rules establish is a range of limitations on the players: each player must, for example, start behind the white line, or have all debts paid by the end of the month, charge patients no more than they can reasonably afford, or drive in the right lane.

In the narrowest sense, rules are not laws; they do not mandate specific behavior, but only restrain the freedom of the players, allowing considerable room for choice within those restraints.

If these restraints are not observed, the outcome of the game is directly threatened. The rules of a finite game are the contractual terms by which the players can agree who has won. "

--From "Finite and Infinite Games," by James Carse.

Saturday, January 15, 2005

Holiday Revelation II: Mook Realizes He's Not a Muslim

My parents converted to Islam before I was born. I don't know the details of their conversion at all, other than that it was a reaction to a spiritual direction they felt to follow as a result of their involvement with Subud-- see this post for details regarding-- they will be very relevant to the following passage.

They asked the founder of Subud, a great spiritual master affectionately known as "Bapak," (meaning "Mister" in Indonesian), to give me a Muslim name when I was born. Bapak was famous for, among other things, being able to give a person a name that matched their true nature. He gave me the name "Mukhtar," which means "Chosen One."

My parents were Muslim, but they were not devoutly so. They believed very deeply in God-- the God of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and the Prophet Muhammad, the same God whose power moved them in their latihan (again, see the Subud link)-- and they still do-- very, very much.

But they never really took to the rigors of the religion-- daily prayers, most notably, were missing (though my father regularly woke for the dawn prayer, and I often joined him). We did all fast the month of Ramadan every year as a family. I really enjoyed that spacey, half-starved feeling-- everyone was a lot calmer and nicer for it.

We never ate pork, but wine and beer were occasionally sipped by my parents, and mom would give me brandy in orange juice when I was sick. Or port wine-- I loved that stuff.

They didn't tithe to the poor, as far as I know, but we never had much money ourselves, for that matter. They gave to Subud what they could.

The Qur'an was rarely opened in our house, and the only verse the children ever learned was the Al'Fatihah-- the opening chapter, the one repeated in prayer by millions of Muslims around the world every day. For a time when most of us were young, my dad would recite it before we all sat to eat dinner together.

If there were Islamic holidays being celebrated by Muslims elsewhere, I never knew of it, and I doubt my parents did either. That's probably because my parents didn't go to the mosque for worship, and in my whole life I have only been twice-- I've sat through far more church services than that. Both times I went were most unpleasant-- after sitting through a lovely devotional prayer together, everyone would erupt in screaming matches over Middle East politics.

So there was no contact with other Muslims or to the larger Muslim community at all, other than those Muslims we happened to know who were in Subud-- a fair number, but they all seemed as non-committal as my parents did. Indeed, while the beliefs of Islam seemed to resonate with my parents, the actual practice of that faith did not, and Subud and the advice of its founder were always by far the real vehicle of their worship and spiritual understanding. For most of my youth this statement could be applied equally as well to me, too.

The word "Islam" comes from the root word for "peace" and means "surrender." The word "Muslim" literally means "slave," as in a slave of God. Islam is a very simple religion, in my mind-- it's the religion of the Old Testament as God always wanted it to be. To become a Muslim all you need to do is recite the following: "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is His Messenger." (You've all just converted). It's an amazing statement in that it affirms by first negating-- apparently, it was most important to God that we denounce the existence of any competitors before we pronounce a belief in His existence. It's not enough, for example, to say "God is the true god," or There is only one God." Eliminate then delineate; negate then state-- that's the strategy, here. Interestingly, we do not hear "There is no Messenger but My Messenger, Muhammad." Apparently, we are to be open to the possibility of other messengers.

Indeed, the Qur'an seeks to announce Muhammad's run at prophethood as a continuation of the progression of his prophetic ancestors, running all the way back to Abraham, and embraces them all as God's true messengers. It picks up from where Jesus left off, with tonight's episode starring Muhammad, who finally and most dramatically delivers on the long promised Prophet-King meme.

The Qur'an is also a retelling and retooling of the major stories of the Old and New Testaments. Only this time, it's taken directly from God's point of view, and, most spectacularly, in God's own words (using the first person singular, though occasionally he uses the "royal We"-- given His resistance to the Trinity, you'd think He'd be sensitive about the implications).

Granted, the book is co-authored by the Archangel Gabriel, who dictated it to Muhammad, who then repeated it to his followers, who eventually put it to ink-- so it's not like we ever get the Author to show up for any book signings. Still, you've got to hand it to Muhammad-- it's a ballsier stab at prophetic revelation than any seen before him in this tradition, excepting perhaps the Ten Commandments of Moses. Gutsier still when we take into consideration that Muhammad was functionally illiterate and that the highest praise and station in his society was reserved for poets. So far exceeding in form, beauty, and power were the words of the Qur'an compared to anything written in the Arabic language in his time (or since, say even objective scholars), that its recitation was experienced by many as nothing short of a miracle. Here, I highly recommend this nice bit o' Google fodder to get a sense of what I mean. Here's a noteworthy passage (amongst many):

The Arabic language, as can be attested to by any of it's scholars, is a very rich and powerful language. The Bedouin people of the Arabian desert were, in general, illiterate people of very little scientific knowledge. The thing that set them apart, however, was their mastery of poetry. Spending their days as they did in the desert watching their sheep graze got quite boring. They alleviated their boredom by continually composing and refining poetry. They would spend entire years composing and refining their poetry in anticipation of a yearly face-down of the poetic compositions of their peers from all over the country. The fact that they were illiterate forced them to also train themselves in the memorization of works of literature to such an extent that they were able to memorize complete works from a single recitation. Even in matters of leadership, one of the major criteria for selecting the leaders of the various Bedouin tribes was the individual's prowess in literary composition and memorization.

The Arabian Bedouins took great pains to make their poetry as compact and picturesque as humanly possible, constantly expanding the language along the way. A single word could convey complete pictures. The Qur'an, however, has put even these great efforts to shame. You will notice that when a Muslim translates a verse of the Qur'an he usually does not say "the Qur'an says so and so" but rather "An approximation of the meaning of what the Qur'an says is so and so." You really need to know the language to comprehend this.

Apparently so.

I mean, here-- take a stab at this random patch of God's own prose, as ably translated by none other than Thomas Cleary, and tell me what you think:

From Women, 36-50

Serve God,
and do not associate
anything with God.
And be good to your parents
and relatives,
and to orphans and paupers,
and to neighbors remote,
and to the companion at your side,
and to the traveler,
and to your wards.
For God does not love
the arrogant, the boastful,

those who are avaricious,
or make others avaricious,
and conceal what God has given them
of divine grace.
And
We have prepared a humiliating torment
for the ungrateful,

and those who spend their money
to be seen by people
without believing in God
or the last day;
and for those to whom
the Perverter is an intimate,
what a wretched companion!

And what burden would it be on them
if they believed in God and the last day
and spent charitably of what God provided them?
And God has complete knowledge of them.

Verily God does not oppress unjustly,
in the slightest measure:
for if there is any good,
God redoubles it,
giving a great reward
from the divine presence.

God does not pardon
setting up partners to God
but pardons anything else
for anyone, by divine will.
And whoever attributes partners to God
has invented a serious wrong.

Have you not observed
those who commend themselves?
God, on the contrary,
commends those whom God will:
and they will not be treated unjustly
in the slightest degree.

Look how they invent
falsehood about God;
and that is sufficient in itself
to be an obvious wrong.


I mean, is it just me, or does this stuff kinda suck?

Listen, I love God, but I have never been able stomach His writing. At least, not as it shows up in every translation of the Qur'an that I've ever read (with the possible exception of Lex Hixon's "Heart of the Koran.") Honestly, it strikes me as threatening, self-centered, boastful, dreary, trite, and . . . . okay, I really need to stop dis'ing the Almighty's poetry. I'm quite sure it is in fact just a problem of translation. But since I can't speak classical Arabic and don't expect I ever will be able to do that, then can you see why I might be having second thoughts about my status as a skinny white Muslim kid from Denver?

I do love God, because, to me, God is love. I do believe in God-- very much. And I have heard and understood boundless love expressed over and over again in the Qur'an-- yes. There's so much that I value about Islam. But it's when God ends His Qur'anic verses with menacing remarks like (open up to another random page): "inform them of an excrutiating pain," as He so often does-- well, that's where He loses me. I just can't abide by that visciously angry, jealous God of old-time religion, with His "look at Me stomping around knocking down buildings and breathing fire down on the infidels!" song-and-dance anymore. That's just not the God I want to hang out with any longer. I actually think He sets a really bad example.

The God I know-- really know-- doesn't do that. Maybe He's changed over the years. When God was speaking through Muhammad back then He was trying to reach a pretty tough crowd-- maybe He had to talk a little smack to get them to listen up? Maybe the God I know is a higher incarnation of the God of Islam. Who knows? All I do know is that my God is a God for the whole Universe, and no one religion can contain Him. It. Whatever.

I realized all of this some time just before the holiday season kicked off. I just woke up one day and I said to myself: "Self, you're not really a Muslim anymore." At least, not in the smaller sense of the word. Not as such. But I will always be a slave to Love, baby!

Of course, I had thought about saying those words for many years. (No, not those words-- the significant ones in quotes a few phrases back. Thank you.) But declaring your faith-- or lack of it-- is hugely significant in Islam. As I said, it is how you become a Muslim. "La Ilaha Illallah." There is no God but God.

Yes-- but I'll follow a different path to Him from now on, I think.

I am no longer a Muslim. God, forgive me for saying so.

Friday, January 14, 2005

GT Gets Served!

Oh, it is on.

Apparently, Russ Klein (who is hence forth to be nick-named "Squeaky"-- referring both to that proverbial wheel and to the edgy cleanliness of his new mustachios) took one look at GeneThug's rabidly ranted response to Russ' post favoring U.S. PIRG's anti-corporate position (who'd a thunk?) on genetically modified foods, threw his hands into the air, and ran squealing (oh, there's a nice one-- "The Squealer," referring both to his conscientious watchdogedness and to the sound he reportedly makes in bed after a good how's-yer-father) straight to none other than U.S. PIRG's very own Clean Water and Food Safety Advocate, Richard Caplan. Caplan's bio can be viewed here.

Never one to turn down a fight, even when up against sniggering little men wearing latex gloves, Richard responds with his own bit o' thuggery as follows:

The post by GeneThug presents a fundamental misunderstanding of law and policy, which is not unusual for a scientist. Because something is merely titled the Coordinated Framework does not make it a functioning, adequate framework in reality. Nor does googling it and proving its existence, alas, help to make it work in practice. On the FDA's own web site, for example, the agency admits it "does not conduct a comprehensive scientific review of data generated by the developer [of a genetically engineered food]." Is that supposed to make us feel good? If the agency charged with food safety oversight is not doing food safety oversight, how coordinated of a framework is that?

A recent report titled "Holes in the Biotech Safey Net" by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a group that actually supports genetically engineered crops, found that, according to coverage of the report in the Wall Street Journal, another outspoken proponent of genetically engineered crops, that "makers of genetically modified crops have avoided answering questions and submitted erroneous data" on the safety of their products to the FDA. Does that sound like a coordinated framework?

Biotech companies, despite the groundless assertion in this post, are self-regulated. They have been self-regulated, and they remain self-regulated.

Perhaps the article "Biotech Food: From the Lab to a Debacle," would be of use to GeneThug, as it quotes the former head of FDA oversight on genetically engineered crops for 15 years as saying, "The U.S. government agencies have done exactly what big agribusiness has asked them to do and told them to do," and the authors of the article describe the current situation as an "unusually generous policy of self-policing." Interesting that GeneThug also fails to note that the National Academy of Sciences has called federal oversight of genetically engineered crops "unscientific" and "inadequate." Interesting that GeneThug calls the PIRG post factually inaccurate while factually inaccurately stating that genetically engineered crops are regulated by FDA, when in fact the agency operates under a Statement of Policy from1992, before any genetically engineered crops were even on the market, and in fact has no regulations in place.

None.

Do your homework, GeneThug, and then rant away. Until then...

--Richard Caplan

When Nerds Get Invited to Pentagon Parties

Hat tip Russ Klein:

Pentagon reveals rejected chemical weapons
15 January 2005

From New Scientist Print Edition.

THE Pentagon considered developing a host of non-lethal chemical weapons that would disrupt discipline and morale among enemy troops, newly declassified documents reveal.

Most bizarre among the plans was one for the development of an "aphrodisiac" chemical weapon that would make enemy soldiers sexually irresistible to each other. Provoking widespread homosexual behaviour among troops would cause a "distasteful but completely non-lethal" blow to morale, the proposal says.

Other ideas included chemical weapons that attract swarms of enraged wasps or angry rats to troop positions, making them uninhabitable. Another was to develop a chemical that caused "severe and lasting halitosis", making it easy to identify guerrillas trying to blend in with civilians. There was also the idea of making troops' skin unbearably sensitive to sunlight.

The proposals, from the US Air Force Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio, date from 1994. The lab sought Pentagon funding for research into what it called "harassing, annoying and 'bad guy'-identifying chemicals". The plans have been posted online by the Sunshine Project, an organisation that exposes research into chemical and biological weapons.

Spokesman Edward Hammond says it was not known if the proposed $7.5 million, six-year research plan was ever pursued.


Printed on Fri Jan 14 07:39:54 GMT 2005

Wednesday, January 12, 2005

Boycotting God

From Slate:

"Send a Message to God: He has gone too far this time."

By Heather Mac Donald
Posted Monday, Jan. 10, 2005, at 11:59 AM PT

In the wake of the tsunami disaster, it's time for believers to take a more proactive role in world events. It's time to boycott God.

Centuries of uncritical worship have clearly produced a monster. God knows that he can sit passively by while human life is wantonly mowed down, and the next day, churches, synagogues, and mosques will be filled with believers thanking him for allowing the survivors to survive. The faithful will ask him to heal the wounded, while ignoring his failure to prevent the disaster in the first place. They will excuse his unwillingness to stave off destruction with alibis ("God wasn't there when the tsunami hit"—Suketu Mehta) and relativising ("for each victim tens of thousands yet live"—Russell Seitz), even if those excuses contradict God's other attributes, such as omnipresence or love for each individual life.

Where is God's incentive to behave? He gets credit for the good things and no blame for the bad. Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft is fond of thanking God for keeping America safe since 9/11; Ashcroft never asks why, if God has fended off terrorist strikes since 9/11, he let the hijackers on the planes on the day itself. Was God caught off guard the first time around, like the U.S. government? But he is omniscient and omnipotent.

So slavishly do his worshipers flatter God that they give him credit for things he didn't even do. Let a man rape and murder a child, and it's the man's offense; but if someone tends to the sick or shares his wealth, it's God's hand at work. The Most Rev. Gabino Zavala from the Los Angeles Roman Catholic Archdiocese rejects any suggestion that God forsook the tsunami victims, according to the Los Angeles Times, but he credits God with the subsequent charity:

"You can see God in the people's response—how they're reaching out."

It is a sad fact of human relations that unqualified adulation often produces from the adored one contempt and a kick in the chops, rather than gratitude and kindness. Apparently, the same applies to human-divine relations.

So, let the human race play hard to get. Imagine God's discombobulation if, after the next mass slaughter of human life, the hymns of praise and incense do not rise up. He checks the Sunday census; the pews are empty. Week after week, the churches and mosques are unattended; the usual gratitude for his not wiping out even more innocent children does not pour forth.

He starts to worry. Has he gone too far this time? Maybe he should've exercised his much heralded powers of intervention, the same powers that his erstwhile worshipers presupposed every time they prayed for him to cure a cancer victim, or get them into law school.

And so, no longer guaranteed an adoring public, he starts to make nice. He calls back avalanches poised to wipe out whole villages; he brings rain to drought-stricken communities; he cures fatally handicapped babies in the womb, or prevents such flawed conceptions before they happen. He presents tokens of his love to malaria victims and children paralyzed by auto accidents. Africa blooms with peace and prosperity.

It might not work. But the "I'm rotten-You're divine" syndrome isn't too functional, either. It's worth a try; there is nothing to lose.

"Long Hair Consumes a Great Deal of Nutrition"

SEOUL (AFP) - Stalinist North Korea has stepped up its campaign against long hair and untidy attire which its media says represents a "corrupt capitalist" lifestyle, reports said.

North Korean state television, radio and newspapers have led the grooming drive, urging people to cut their hair short and to dress tidily, the BBC said in a dispatch citing broadcasts from Pyongyang.

Men were asked to have crew cuts with hair growing up to five centimeters (two inches) in a twice-a-month visit to the barber, it said.

Not only health and hygiene but also intelligence was cited by the North Korean media as reasons for the crackdown on appearance.

Pyongyang television noted long hair "consumes a great deal of nutrition" and could thus rob the brain of energy, according to the BBC.

But another serious reason came from state radio which said tidy attire "is important in repelling the enemies' maneuvers to infiltrate corrupt capitalist ideas and lifestyle" in North Korea, it said.

The ruling communist party newspaper, Rodong Sinmun, even warned inappropriate appearance under foreign influence could lead to national decay.

"People who wear other's style of dress and live in other's style will become fools and that nation will come to ruin," Rodong was cited as saying.

Some North Korean TV broadcasts adopted a hidden-camera style video of longhaired men on various locations throughout Pyongyang in an unprecedented break with their usual approach.The program showed those who were not "in accordance with Socialist lifestyle" just run away or make excuses of being too busy to trim their hair.

(+)(+) = (-)

From the Oxblog:

A FRIEND JUST POINTED ME TO this very interesting obituary of Sidney Morgenbesser from the NYT Mag. I had never heard of Morgenbesser, but he sounds wonderful and fascinating. Best anecdote:

The most widely circulated tale -- in many renditions it is even presented as a joke, not the true story that it is -- was his encounter with the Oxford philosopher J. L. Austin. During a talk on the philosophy of language at Columbia in the 50's, Austin noted that while a double negative amounts to a positive, never does a double positive amount to a negative. From the audience, a familiar nasal voice muttered a dismissive, ''Yeah, yeah.''


GT Goes Rabid

(A reaction to the "Russ On Franken-Carrots" post. This needs to be read.)

"Rabid"? Hardly.

Look. If your friend believes that, say, businesses are Evil, or that the massive-but-random retroviral mediated gene transfer and cross hybridization that occurs in nature confers some sacred "purity" that purposeful genetic transfer defiles, that technological progress to increase food production and reduce pesticide use is Evil, or that unaccountable Federal bureaucracies (like the FDA) are somehow more inherently accountable or transparent than publicly owned/traded/liable companies, who am I to disavow him of his comforting, righteous delusions? Rock on, buddy.

'Sides, I wouldn't even know where to begin Fisking. As is typical with advocacy journalism, this thing is riddled with factually false premises that result in erroneous conclusions. An example? The post suggests that biotech companies are self-regulated, and that the FDA should be given even more regulatory oversight by the dastardly Bush regime. This is pure disinfotainment, as 20 seconds of googling would confirm. (try this: "Under the Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology, three US governmental agencies regulate GMOs: the Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)" - since the NIH setup the coordinated framework, there's at least 4 federal regulatory bodies with overlapping regulatory oversight, and as a molecular biologist I can assure you, it's a "volutary" regulatory paperwork nightmare to get any work done at all with/from the Feds. http://www.isb.vt.edu/greenhouse/green_man.section2.htm).

As for "the contamination of the food supply", what does that even mean? Genes hop around all the time randomly in nature, so it can't be that. Wouldn't contamination require, say, negative health effects to be an accurate description? And don't even DREAM about posting the retracted Berkeley (Quist and Chapela) Nature study, unless you're prepared to defend their sloppy, half assed inverse PCR methods.

Here's the latest report from the corporate tools (/sarcasm) at the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) http://books.nap.edu/books/0309092094/html/8.html#pagetop Their conclusion? "To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population," concludes a new report, Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods, by the National Academy of Sciences, cited by Ms. Brody. The NAS report also notes that the European Union's regulations require that all food products enhanced by gene splicing be evaluated prior to commercialization, but exempts from similar evaluation all other foods that are more crudely genetically modified by means of mutagenesis or cross breeding. The NAS correctly concludes that "the policy to assess products based exclusively on their method of breeding is scientifically unjustified."

Brody (who covers this in a NYT article that doesn't link directly) comments: "A risk-based protocol for safety evaluations would greatly reduce the time and costs involved in developing most new gene-spliced crops, many of which could raise the standard of living worldwide and better protect the planet from chemical contamination." Oh those crazy, greed blinded right wing thugs at the NY Times, always advocating more/cheaper/cleaner food production methods for the poor (/more sarcasm).

I could go on, but really, now. Re-read both the PIRG release and the rant that follows, bearing in mind that they're factually wrong, that biotech is federally regulated and that no illnesses have arisen from GMOs after over a decade of large scale consumption (in the hundreds of millions of tons scale), that other people have access to Google as well, and that people resent being lied to. Does this enhance the credibility of other, legitimate environmental or Humanist concerns? Does it help environmentalism or the Left in general, when people realize that they're being manipulated for cynical/ignorant political reasons by the "good" guys?

Okay. Maybe a little rabid. But it pisses me off when people claim to be "Progressive", while lying to advance Luddite/reactionary policies that hinder progress and directly harm the poor. Oh, and welcome back! It's nice to see you posting again.

Monday, January 10, 2005

Russ On Franken-Carrots

Says Russ:

Mu,

I agree with PIRG here.
If U2 agree, alert your following masses...


U.S. PIRG : help stop contamination of the food supply
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:36:09 -0500

Dear U.S. PIRG supporter,

The Bush administration is proposing to let huge agricultural conglomerates off the hook for contamination of our food supply by genetically engineered crops. This unscientific approach is being advanced to help the biotechnology industry avoid liability for potentially contaminating conventional food crops with unapproved genetically engineered crops. Please take a moment to tell the Food and Drug Administration that you want them to protect our food supply instead of shielding big biotechnology conglomerates from responsibility for their actions. Then ask your family and friends to help by forwarding this email to them.

To take action, click on this link or paste itinto your web browser: http://pirg.org/alerts/route.asp?id=281&id4=ES

Background:
The Food and Drug Administration does not approve genetically engineered crops for food safety. Instead, the system in this country is voluntary and the biotechnology industry largely functions on the honor system, conducting its own tests and consulting with the government only if it wants to. It is a system that favors the needs of industry over the needs of consumers. Under this lax oversight system, the biotechnology industry has made major mistakes, contaminating conventional crops with genetically engineered material never intended for human consumption, such as pig vaccines that were grown in corn, or contaminating the food supply with a protein thought to be an allergen. The biotechnology and food processing industries do not want to be burdened with regulations, nor do they want to have to initiate any more product recalls, and so they are seeking to be able to contaminate the food supply legally. On November 24, 2004, the Bush administration proposed eliminating the biotechnology industry's responsibility for contamination of the food supply - and putting that responsibility on the American public.

Please take a moment to tell the Food and Drug Administration that you want them to ensure the safety of America's food supply instead of shielding big biotechnology conglomerates from responsibility for their actions. Then ask your family and friends to help by forwarding this email to them. To take action, click on this link or paste it into your web browser: http://pirg.org/alerts/route.asp?id=281&id4=ES

Sincerely,

Gene Karpinski
U.S. PIRG Executive Director


Says Mook:

Mostly, I don't.

But it would be worth posting anyway just to get GeneThug's response-- he'll go rabid.

Mind?


Says Russ:

Do tell! You don't see a problem with the theory of self-regulation? Does a de-regulated "honor system"work in other industries where the public trust and health is daily put against the almighty dollar; if no one is watching, corporations --when considered as *living* entities sharing certain rights ofcitizenship-- behave pathologically, or so I've read lately (Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Global Crossing, Adelphia, Savings and Loan, Mutual Funds...). As Richard Caplan used to assert, the biotech industry simply is not interested in taking the additional ethical, costly steps required to stem abuse ofantibiotics a gene markers. Just like you should not stop taking antibiotics before the doctor's prescription runs out, and you should not quit applying medicated antibiotic creams after one day, the use of antibiotics as gene markers requires conscientious management. Releasing products for public consumption -- without removing test-antibiotics applied during research -- subjects the public to risks of new strains of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. This is serious stuff. I'm not a biologist and anyone who wants to understand this in the Mookblog audience ought to lookthis up for him/herself.

It's a major reason why the EU and several African nations go apeshit every time our industry makes attempts to enter their markets! Anyway, go ahead and put this on the blog --though I'll check ya out in a moment; mebbe you've posted PIRG's solicitation already..?

Hybrid Bid

Mux,

For anyone who loves a word challenge....

Russ

***********BEGIN LEFTIST PITCH***************

Hi!

I thought you'd want to know about a contest being held by New American Dream at http://www.newdream.org/prius/index.php?contest_source=8
-- they're giving away a car!

All you have to do is write a ten word (or less) slogan that tells automakers to bring more efficient hybrid vehicles to market. They're looking for a slogan that will capture the automakers' attention and inspire action! This campaign will make an immediate positive impact on carbon emissions and be a great step toward stopping global warming.

If your slogan is selected as the best core message for the campaign, you'll be gliding past gas pumps in a 2005 Toyota Prius hybrid that gets 55 mpg.

Go to:http://www.newdream.org/prius/index.php?contest_source=8 to enter your slogan.

Oh, and if you win, you have to let me borrow it now and then! ;)

Mook Getting Hit By Life Bus

Hi ho, loyal Mookbloggers!

I promise this isn't gonna read like some spoofy article from the Onion: "Local Man Starts Blog, Quits Posting Two Months Later," subtitled: "Finally Gets A Life." Au contrare, mes amis--nothing could be further, I say! Truly, I have every intention of keeping this blog moving full speed ahead into this so-far fantastic new year, but life really has hit me like a bus lately. I'm telling you, I have tons to talk about-- TONS-- but I need to find five hours to write down the backlog, never mind current mook happenings, yet I can't seem to find even five minutes lately. But things are gonna settle down soon enough, and I'll be laying into you with my "Holiday Revelations Series" in short order. Here's an exciting preview of headlines to come:

1. Mook Admits He's Not Actually A Muslim. "Gasp!"
2. Mook Concedes To GT On The Iran Preemption Piece. "It can't be!"
3. Mook Drops "Yakety Yak" Plan. "Can you hear me now? No way!"
4. Mook Gets Rich Quick Off Of Sketchy Internet Business. "Shmerr?!"
5. Mook Joins Odd New Age Religion Called ECKANKAR. "Holy Cow!"

All this and more (like, for example, the enormously significant election in Palestine and the upcoming one in Iraq-- there's days of catch-up writing to do on these issues alone) will be posted here at ye ole' Mookblog very soon! Stayed tuned, my compatriots!

Cheerio!

Mooks

PS: "Holiday Revalations I" due out sometime very late tomorrow night-- I doubt you'll get anything else from me 'til then-- tomorrow/today is already promising to be another ride on the fender of life. Awesome!

Thursday, January 06, 2005

My Happiness Explained



Some of you have probably never seen a picture of my lovely wife, Keri Myrna Elizabeth Ramsey. Here she is! Could she be any cuter? Me thinks not. Posted by Hello

A Happy Birthday Indeed

Thanks to all of you who called and emailed to wish me a happy birthday yesterday! It really was a wonderful day for me.

Highlights:

--Taught a pilates class at 7am in the morning-- always a great way to start any day.

--Was treated to a lovely traditional Ramsey family breakfast of grits, eggs over-easy, and turkey bacon all mashed together by my lovely wife.

--Answered cards and phone calls from family and friends, some from as far away as Japan.

--Had a quiet day at home with the (neighbor's) cat-- did lots of meditating-- most excellent.

--Went to my school clinic and got diagnosed with kidney yang deficiency with liver qi stagnation and heart blood deficiency. Awesome! Got put on some strange syrupy herbs which promise to taste like opossum vomit. Yay!

--Baked a few dozen chocolate chip cookies for me to eat. Yum.

--Went out for dinner at California Pizza Kitchen.

--Bought a new cookie jar to put my cookies in.

--Rented and watched "Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle"-- a super hilarious stoner movie.

--Got cool presents: a book on geo-political conflict called "The Pentagon's New Map," by Thomas Barnett (thanks Mom!), and from my wife a pull-up bar complete with lifting gloves to protect my delicate paws, "America: the Book" by Jon Stewart (had me laughing 'til 2am last night), and perhaps best of all, the expansion set to "Starfarers of Catan," which is without question the coolest board game I have ever played, and the new rules/additions look super neato (more on that later).

Overall, a very nice way to celebrate turning 32.

Love to all,

Mooks


Welcome Gibson Musisko, Born New Year's Day, 2005

And a hearty congratulations to my dear brother, Gary Musisko, and his girlfriend, Jen-- I cannot wait to meet your new son.

Love to you all,

Mukhtar


I'm Back!

Helloooooooo there!

AH! Feels good to be back a'blogging again!

So much to say! I'll start with this--

"HAPPY NEW YEAR!"

Here's to another year of Mookness all round.

Cheerio!

Mooks

Tuesday, January 04, 2005

Mook To Resume Blogging On January 6th

Just got home from a fantastic holiday with family in the Washington DC area, and I am taking a little time to get settled into the new year. January 5th is my birthday, (turning 32, thanks), so I figure I'll take today and tomorrow off to celebrate.

But wow is there alot to talk about. Looking forward to it.

Cheerio!

Mooks

Wednesday, December 22, 2004

Gerbye!

And seein' as its me that'll be on the receiving end of our dearest GeneThug's game-table thuggery over the next couple weeks, you can bet I'll be blog-blocked til next year, too. 'Til then, here's to a truly great couple months knocking skulls together on this here web log-- thanks for tuning in, and I look forward to more Mook madness with you all in '05!

The future is very bright!

Cheerio,
And much love!

Mooks



Click Here