All Posts

Oh hell.
I blame you, Mr. Levy…

I keep meaning to mention and support Bigwig’s fine idea, The Carnival of the Vanities, a weekly assemblage of bloggers self-selected best work.
Normally it’s over at Hraka, but this week, Lair is stepping in and hosting it at File 13.
Go forth and check it out, y’hear…

Wow. What do people find even more irritating than Michael Moore? Stark’s Salon interview of Michael Moore.
Since I’m in need of self-affirmation today (just finished filling out my unemployment application), I will fondly reflect on the fact that I got much nicer letters.
(I’m attractive, and smart, and gosh darn it, people like me…!)

Okay apropos of nothing, here’s a request to the peanut gallery:
Has anybody ever found a non-alcoholic beer that doesn’t taste like piss?
I enjoy good beer. I’d rather drink it than soda any evening. But often I have no interest in getting even a slight buzz; I just want a drink that tastes pleasant.
I’ve tried Kaliber, and St. Pauli Girl NA, and they suck, so don’t even bother suggesting them.
Am I chasing a nonexistent ideal here? Suggestions are highly desired…

For those of you who are interested in the more geeky side of the weblog world, the Weblog MetaData Initiative — formerly known as “BlogMD” — is looking for folks to help test out a preliminary, alpha-level specification for encoding metadata in weblogs.
All it takes is enough knowledge to know how to edit your weblog templates — we’re using HTML tags for this experiment, so it should be doable on any weblogging system, even Blogger.
If you’re interested, check out the announcement at the project’s new home — . Yes, we finally got a real domain!
And I certainly wouldn’t mind if folks spread the word on this — the more folks we can get as test cases using different weblog tools the more effective our effort will be, so please, make with the linky-linky thing if you would be so kind…
-NZB
Update: Several folks are now working on how to implement the tags on Blogger, and I’ve created a special test blog so they can hack away without munging up their real homepages. If you would like to join in the Blogger fun, drop me a message and I’ll add you as an administrator to the test blog…

Neat! Somebody TTLB for a Bloggy award for best design.
Flattered, I am. I think the voting is open until the end of the month, so go cast your ballots…

I attempted to send this to Kausguy via email, but he’s having mail troubles, so I guess I’ll just have to make a post of it. I’m sure Mickey is spending his emailless hours hitting the refresh button compulsively on TTLB, so he’ll see it right away anyway of course.
Sir Kaus continues to search for a last-minute, write-in candidate to swoop into the California governor’s election and claim the ABGDALAINBS (Anybody But Gray Davis As Long As It’s Not Bill Simon) spot. Kaus seems to think that such a spoiler would be a sure thing to win, or at the very least, ensure that he didn’t have to expend much actual work coming up with blog post ideas for a week or two.
His last for help came today:
Two late-breaking, obvious California gubernatorial nominees (of kf readers): Warren Beatty or Martin Sheen! … Should have thought of them myself. … Beatty made a funny political movie about just the kind of quixotic campaign that this last-minute write-in drive could be. … Sheen’s politically active and respected. Time for him to cash in before those West Wing ratings fall even more!… Either man would steal much of Gov. Gray Davis’ liberal support. … Neither will do it, of course, because they both have something to lose if they flop. .. No, we need someone with high-name recognition, but no respectability left whatsoever.
Two words, baby: Hugh Hefner !
Envied by the men; popular with the ladies (natch). How could he lose? And besides, his campaign staff would sure be easy on the eyes.
P.S. – In mentioning his fritzed email, Kaus also said something about looking for a Sicilian girlfriend with a 4-6 inch penis. Or something like that. So if that’s you, well, go help a brother out…

We’re in the midst of much “why are we talking about invading Iraq and not North Korea, since North Korea just admitted they’re working on nukes” nonsense right now.
So I figured I’d reach back into the good old archives and repost a simple set of rules I declared for when I believe the United States is justified in using military force. The orignal post is but to save you that extra click (we’re service oriented here at TTLB), here it is:
The United States should consider military action to effect a change of regime against a foreign power when:
1) That power has demonstrated that they are hostile to the U.S. and its citizens, either by directly attacking us; by threatening or planning such an attack, or by supporting other actors who have executed or have threatened such an attack.
or
2) All of the following are true:
a) We have the means to decisively execute such a military operation without significant casualities, to our own forces or to innocent civilians.
b) Deposing the regime is clearly in the best interest of its citizens, and our intention is to establish a democratic government upon completion of the operation.
c) Such an operation is in the selfish best interest of the United States (economically; politically, etc.).

If you apply these principles to Baghdad and Pyongyang, I think it becomes rapidly clear why we’re not considering an assault on North Korea as a valid option (hint: it gets clearer if you’re a resident of Seoul).

TTLB is a public-service oriented kinda blog, and in that spirit, I offer the following words of wisdom from Sean Penn, from an advertisement he placed in the Washington Post today opposing war against Iraq:
says:
In an open letter to Bush taking up most of a page in the main section of the daily newspaper, the Oscar-nominated star of I Am Sam and Dead Man Walking, urged the President to stop a cycle where “bombing is answered by bombing, mutilation by mutilation, killing by killing”.
“I beg you, help save America before yours is a legacy of shame and horror,” Penn wrote, echoing voices of caution from around the world that have called for a measured response to allegations Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction.
The letter was signed “Sincerely, Sean Penn, San Francisco, California”. A spokesman for The Washington Post confirmed that it was placed by the Hollywood celebrity who has starred in more than 40 movies.
Quoting Bush’s declaration that the world was either “with us or against us” in the war on terrorism launched after the September 11, 2001, attacks, Penn, 42, said Bush was marginalising critics, manipulating the media and promoting fear.
Those actions and “your administration’s deconstruction of civil liberties all contradict the very core of the patriotism you claim”, wrote Penn, who is married to actress Robin Wright Penn, and was formerly married to pop star Madonna.
“Sacrificing American soldiers or innocent civilians in an unprecedented preemptive attack on a separate sovereign nation may well prove itself a most temporary medicine,” he said…
Why is this a public service? Because Tony Pierce was getting extremely agitated — irked, even — that nobody on the pro-war side of the Blogosphere had paid due note to Mr. Penn’s remarks.
Because you see, I — like many — don’t give too much of a damn what Sean Penn thinks. But if Tony is upset — well then that just won’t do.
PS – Sorry Tony, looked for a full transcript, couldn’t find one. But I’ll link to it if somebody tells me where it is!
*All I need are some tasty waves, a cool buzz, and I’m fine.

Eric S. Raymond is back, and has penned an Manifesto.
I agree with most of Eric’s sentiments; while there are a few points where I might quibble the overall core is sound.
My concern, however, is that while the Manifesto is a fine statement of principles, it is sorely lacking in action. It is all fine and good to declare that “we shall fight the barbarians and fanatics, and we shall defeat them.”
But the fact is, I’m not going to fight the barbarians and fanatics; nor are 99% of those who read and sign Eric’s manifesto. At least, not directly. The fine men and women of my nation’s armed forces and law enforcement entities are the ones who will do the fighting, not I: only the most shameless poseur would pretend otherwise.
So what can I, and we, do? In the spirit of that question, I offer the following additions to Eric’s Manifesto:
WE SHALL study closely the statements and actions of our elected officials and candidates. Recognizing that this conflict is the defining crisis of our age and a danger which renders all other issues secondary, we shall judge our politicians first and foremost by their stance on this war. We pledge to cast our ballots for those leaders who we believe are best suited to guide our civilization through this crisis, regardless of disagreements we may hold with them on other issues.
WE SHALL seek the hard reality of facts to guide us in our judgements throughout this war, and will strive to spread truth wherever we shall find it. As webloggers, we have but one true power: to share information. Whether we reach a single reader or thousands, we each pledge to shine our own light into the dark corners of the web, the media, and the world. Where truth has been overlooked, we shall find it; where lies are piled high obscuring facts, we will sweep them away.
WE SHALL apply our powers of persuasion to the fight; pouring our passion into our writings and striving to convince those who still doubt. We pledge to argue not for the beauty of our own rhetoric; not for the applause and admiration of our colleagues, but to lend clarity to the critical debates that face our civilization. We shall strive to ensure that our conviction does not overwhelm our own humility, and will remember that sometimes, the path we initially believe is right will be proved wrong. Some questions which face us now present obvious solutions; with others, the course is less clear. Through honest, open, and impassioned debate, we will provide the heat — and light — in which our civilization’s decisions may be forged.
WE SHALL watch. We shall consider carefully, and argue wisely, to the best of our abilities. We will exercise the very rights which our enemies would see taken from us: to speak freely, and to choose leaders who will represent and defend us.
And it is those freedoms with which we will do our part to ensure the safety of our civilization, and the defeat of our enemies.

Flipping through the radio the other day, I came across a brief snippet of a quote that fascinated me. I never got the context; so I present it here in its splendid isolation:
“…this rush to war for the past year…”
Now it’s of course leaping to conclusions to conclude, well, anything without some semblence of the surrounding statement.
But isn’t it a beautifully concise summary of (one of) the inherent contradiction(s) of the anti-war crowd nonetheless?
*DR. DOLEN: Oh, was dying for years.
FLETCH: Sure, but the end was so sudden.
DR. DOLEN: He was in intensive care for eight weeks.
FLETCH: Yes, but the very end, when he actually died, that was extremely sudden.