Ever since ditching their adorably whiny, snarky koala mascot, Qantas has had a strong, longstanding connection to the slogan "The Spirit of Australia". ..

So, it's understandable, perhaps that it might make someone a bit hesitant to fly Qantas when their plane, "Spirit of Australia" has about a 9' hole in its side, after having suffered explosive decompression for some unexplained reason.

You'd almost think that someone was trying to send a message, and that the airline -- or Australia itself -- was being targeted, wouldn't you?!

Now obviously, it's premature to say anything about what happened, other than the fact that Youtube has given us all unprecedented opportunity to see perhaps the happiest plane landing most of us will ever get the chance to see... with applause, even. 

But all I can say is that if I'm flying in a plane, I don't want it to be "The Spirit of America", or "California Spirit", or "American Pride" or anything of the sort. How about a nice, boring name that wouldn't attract anyone trying to make a political statement. 

My advice... name the planes like they were beloved household pets. Golden Retriever. Spot, etc... and if the terrorists want to blow up the planes, let 'em try. 

"Those bastards blew up Fluffy!"

Not only would the public get seriously pissed off at the terrorists, but the terrorists themselves would be mercilessly teased by all their friends on their choice of target. It's easy to brag about blowing up the World Trade Center, but if you blow up Flopsy or Muffin, you'll never hear the end of it.

Not the kind of publicity that the bad guys want, really. 

Meanwhile, I would just advise to Qantas... bring back the koala. Because given how scary explosive decompression and terrorist bombs can be, you'll want your passengers to be thinking of the cute more often.      

I hate to break Haruhiko's heart, but it looks like our erstwhile former Senator from North Carolina may have a serious mistress / lovechild problem...

The story went straight from the National Enquirer to a Beverley Hilton hotel guard to Fox News... because, obviously, Fox would find it "newsworthy".  Anything to get Obama out of the spotlight, I guess. 

That said, as much as I dislike the source, I fully expect the allegation to be essentially correct. National Enquirer actually has a pretty good record when it comes to political affairs, and investigates with a bloodlust rarely seen in the mainstream media.  

Considering how desperate John McCain's campaign has been lately, obviously any bad news for any Democrat is Barack Obama's fault, and clearly reflects on his morality... whatever that means.  (Sure, it's a nebulous argument, but for people who like to be disagreeable just for the hell of it, it's clearly good enough.

Given that John Edwards' wife is currently fighting stage IV breast cancer, well... let's just say that John Edwards' timing just sucks. I mean, it's really low and disrespectful... almost like something John McCain would've done to one of his wives!

Obama/Edwards, 2008-2008. RIP.  

 

I have busy schedule today with cancerous children, giving blood, but I found a chance to do a good deed.  Happy, happy, happy!!!  Dalai Lama shares his love with you!  Helps scared, brittle old man walk across field of bumpy pebbles without breaking hip!  Hip hip happy!!!

He even say Dalai Lama is good guy, and not some  "gook".  What this word "gook"?! 1337Z0l2Z???! I'm good cook! Make healthy lentil herb stew! Tasty happy!  

End all human suffering! Happy bye!  

You may have seen the link around here and there, but Fantastic Contraption is complete crack. 

I just made this fantastic contraption, and well... it took awhile, but I'm proud of my pixelated baby tank - ramp - grabber thing

Tropical Storm Dolly has a good chance of becoming a hurricane soon, and landing somewhere around Brownsville, Texas, near the Mexican border.

The good news is, it looks likely to be a low-level, fast moving hurricane. Yay.

The bad news is, it's likely to interfere with about 10% of the nation's oil supply, and about 20% of its natural gas supply for several days... assuming it doesn't do any serious infrastructure damage. Boo.

Just be glad it's not showing signs of going further north at this moment. That would be expensive, considering.

Meanwhile, the water is hot off of Africa, with a fairly good chance that other storms may soon be on their way... 

'tis the season...! 

I let my cynicism get the best of me regarding "The Dark Knight".

I was, frankly, a bit weary of the whole Batman franchise, and judging from the half-full theater, so were a lot of people. The trailers for the movie were simply inadequate, but it was easily the best Batman superhero movie ever. Epic. Dark. Complex.

Heath Ledger was sadly, tragically perfect as the Joker. Clearly Oscar-worthy, even if you don't take into account his death... better than Nicholson. 

Christian Bale did a great job playing both of his major characters, Batman and Bruce Wayne.  Finally, we have a Batman bringing some serious duality to the role!

The directing and screenplay was strong, put together by the minds behind "Momento". Frankly, The Dark Knight's screenplay is superior... just as complex and innovative as that film, while resting on far more solid ground.

The cinematography and action sequences were awe-inspiring at times.  They used IMAX cameras to film several major scenes... and it shows, with images that look as good as a Frank Miller spash page.

Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman were both as good as they could be, considering their roles, which were strengthened because both of them were given moral dillemas... as was Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent / Twoface, Gary Oldman as Police Commissioner Gordon... in fact, if there is one main theme in this movie, it is the moral challenge of being a good guy when faced with impossible moral dilemmas... all brought to us by the ultimate ringmaster of nihilistic chaos, the Joker.

All in all, it was as good as it gets. But can they possibly do it again?!  I'd like to see them try. 

Maybe I wasn't quite as weary of the Batman franchise as I thought.

Facing significant pressure from Iraq's government, the US people, and from the international community, the Bush administration seems to be giving in to political reality.. kinda.

Are they going to agree to "deadlines for withdrawal"? No.

They're going to agree to a "time horizon" for troop cuts.

And what's the real, practical difference, you might ask?!

NUANCE!

By all means, let's have time horizons, gradual troop drawdowns, redeployments... but never a "deadline". 

Remember... If the Republicans leave Iraq, it's coming home victorious. 
If the Democrats leave Iraq, it's cutting and running!  

I hate it when news agencies distort reality by finding the infrequent exception to the rule.

Case in point, by Reuters.

"Iraqis want the U.S. military presence to end. But when that occurs -- and whether a timetable should be set for troops to leave -- is something ordinary Iraqis, security officials and politicians cannot agree on."

Except, of course, for the Iraqi Parliament, which has been fighting for a timetable for withdrawal since passing a resolution supporting a U.S. withdrawal LAST YEAR...

...or the Iraqi people, who, as early as 2006, said overwhelmingly that they wanted the US out... immediately!

...or the Iraqi Prime Minister, who now, finally supports a timetable for withdrawal, even though he has intentionally avoided making any actual, firm security treaties with the US since last year, because he KNEW that the Iraq's constitution required parliamentary approval for any such treaties, and that the Iraqi Parliament would demand that a timetable for withdrawl be attached to any such treaty. And so the US and Maliki wasted a year on force agreements... declarations of principles... anything to avoid an actual treaty that could be approved by Iraq's elected officials.

Indeed... other than a large majority of Iraq's elected leaders, an overwhelming majority of Iraqis, a clear majority of Americans, an overwhelming majority of the US soldiers stationed in Iraq, and Bill O'Reilly, nobody wants the US to leave Iraq soon.

Certainly not the Bush administration, who has rejected the Iraqi Prime Minister's call for the withdrawl of US forces, calling it "an artificial timetable for withdrawal". (So much for soveriegnity or democracy, I guess...) Indeed, his administration is so amp'ed up about maintaining the US occupation that they've reportedly threatened the Iraqi government by withholding tens of billions of Iraqi dollars in US banks if they don't sign off on an "agreement" that will enshrine permanent US advantages and, ideally, permanent US military bases in Iraq.

(Guess all those permanent-looking bases that we built in Iraq were supposed to be permanent military bases. Who'da thunk?!) 

So, when Reuters talks about a timetable for withdrawal being something that "ordinary Iraqis, security officials and politicians cannot agree on", you have to wonder where they get off. 

It's bad enough that these ignoramuses didn't see the writing on the wall, and did nothing to inform the public regarding this issue, treating Maliki's sudden resistance to permanently selling out the Iraqi people as something that was shocking and surprising, rather than as a matter of political necessity for him, given that Iraqi elections are coming up soon.

Really, who writes this crap, and what is their motivation? Is searching for the rare exception to the rule and claiming that Iraqis are strongly divided on the issue of withdrawal their idea of "balance"? If so, they have consistantly advocated ignorance and deception to the public in the name of balance, only to feign surprise when change suddenly "happens".

Five and a half years into a preemptive war and unpopular occupation?! There was nothing sudden about it...! And unfortunately, despite the clear, obvious Iraqi opposition to a prolonged US occupation, there will be nothing sudden about US withdrawal so long as the war's backers have anything to do with it. It doesn't take that many warhawks -- and chickenhawks -- to talk tough in order to scare everyone else in the coop into submission.  Political necessity requires all to act "tough", even if doing so requires them to act ignorant at the same time. 

That is ultimately the trap we've found our nation in today -- an inability to act rationally, in the best interest of our nation.  Talking indefinite occupation and ever-expanding debts in the midst of a major economic downturn, and potentially catastrophic climate change? How suicidal is that?!! 

Reuters and other opinion shapers, with their unwillingness to clearly state the reality of Iraqi public opinion... their unwillingness to lay out how the US is attempting to break their promises to leave when asked by the Iraqis to do so... their attempts to subvert Iraq's government and constitution... they are giving John McCain the room to posture and call upon some truely undemocratic, idiotic theoreticals -- such as a prolonged occupation of Iraq -- as an example of toughness and supporting the troops, as opposed to the reality of the situation -- an attack upon an emurging, soveriegn government, and a betrayal of the wishes and the trust of American servicemen and women.  

The Iraqis are a patient people, who will gladly outwait the Bush administration in order to get a better deal that would protect and secure their soveriegnity. But it is dangerous and foolhardy for any American to assume that their patience is inexhaustable, and that they can be asked to wait patiently and peacefully, indefinitely. 

Have no doubt... voting for McCain is the same thing as voting for the fragile waiting game we face today in Iraq to end. Today, we fight only those parties in Iraq that the Iraqi government tolerates us attacking. But if the Iraqis were faced with an open-ended, indefinite occupation, we might very well find ourselves fighting both an increasingly negative and hostile world opinion, and a truely united Iraq. 

 "Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years." 
- Al Gore, July 17, 2008

"I strongly agree with Vice President Gore that we cannot drill our way to energy independence, but must fast-track investments in renewable sources of energy like solar power, wind power and advanced biofuels. . . . It's a strategy that will create millions of new jobs that pay well and cannot be outsourced, and one that will leave our children a world that is cleaner and safer."
- Barack Obama, July 17, 2008

It's telling that we are seeing Al Gore in a suit & tie, with all those flags behind him again. To me, this says to me that he feels that it's time to become political, if only to put this issue on the front burner. 

Al Gore has spoken previously as a political outsider, as that best suited his ability to be effective... but now he's upping the ante, and will be speaking to a national audience throughout this campaign, with a level of gravitas that is arguably higher today than that of any former president living today. And when he speaks, it will be assumed by many that he speaks with the approval and blessing of the next President of the United States... whoever that may be... 

...and woe betide to any candidate who crosses him! Expect Al Gore to try to nail Barack Obama *AND* John McCain down to firm commitments ahead of time, and expect him to keep beating up on John McCain for wanting to allow his supporters to drill everywhere, even as McCain is forced to adopt a green facade.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.    

I don't know how much the rest of you have noticed it, but I have seen a *HUGE* increase in comments, especially in many of my most widely read posts, that are clearly a form of spam.  To make matters worse, these spam comments are coming from "registered" users, such as

paulaqiguz

zsuzannapivyx

Around ten minutes of video have been released by the Canadian lawyers of Omar Khadr, a sixteen-year-old Canadian prisoner at Guantanamo, during his interrogation in 2003. The interrogators are Canadian intelligence agents, who heard from Khadr that he was abused and mistreated inside Guantanamo.  Additional video from the interrogation is available here.   

So, basically it shows a kid who initially says to the Canadian, in what I read as a rather fake tone, "well, actually, I'm very happy inside....", but completely changes his tone on the next day, claiming to have been abused and mistreated by his captors, before falling into complete despair with cries of "help me"... and, if I heard it right, "kill me".

So, what's to be thought of this?  I don't trust the kid, and I get the gut feeling that he isn't "innocent", but at the same time, he made a claim of abuse and mistreatment which the Canadian interrogator -- and government -- has largely ignored... and the situation that he is in currently is one where there is no real transparency or accountability.

Under the circumstances, can anyone give any good reasons why he shouldn't be tried and held in Canada?   

LJer and NGO (non-government organization) aid worker vasco_pyjama, who you might remember being mentioned on my journal way, way back for her exploits in trying to help with food, water, and farming in Afghanistan, now finds herself in the middle of yet another crisis... this time in Somalia, where several aid workers have been killed and/or seriously wounded in the past few days.

Yet another civil war, essentially, between Islamic factions and nominally pro-US "government" forces, with a whole bunch of assorted poor, impoverished people in the middle of the whole mess... and, to make matters worse, it's not entirely clear that the Islamic leaders are the (only) bad guys in this case, as there are reports that government forces are aggressively against NGOs aiding and feeding "the enemy".

In any event, it's a dangerous, uncertain, unpredictable situation to find yourself in the middle of. Wish her well.

The new Sigur Ros album, which is apparently everywhere, as of today.

Listening to it right now. Not sure what I think, entirely.

I mean, yes, I like it, but it feels a bit more stripped down indie... which is still fine, pleasant, and musical... except that I think I want Sigur Ros to be more structural, thematic... practically symphonic. It evolves towards that over the course of the album, such as on songs like Ara batur, but lacks the same kind of structure and emotional resonance that past albums have had.

Sigur Ros are doing the requisite world tour, but $52 after service charges to see them at a 20,000+ general admission outdoor ampetheatre does not appeal much to me. Sure, prices go up... but really, several multi-day festivals with numerous attending international artists cost less. This might be how the big venue/ticketing conglomerates like to work, but at a certain point, the artists need to step up and take responsibility for the shows they perform, to make sure that their audiences aren't being "middlemanned" to death and are getting their money's worth.

It's sad seeing good musicians -- and good music -- become a kind of ingratiatingly friendly, almost gentrified product. I like Sigur Ros quite a bit, and like this album. but I grew up on goth, etherial, shoegazer, ambient... so it's a bit obvious, perhaps. It's another comforting background noise -- aural wallpaper -- but I find it unfortunate that the biggest challenge listeners will face from it is justifying the purchase(s) involved.

Well, as you may have heard, the House of Representatives have caved on the issue of telecom immunity... passing legislation that would shield telecom companies from any responsibility regarding their cooperation in violating the privacy of American citizens, and effectively blocking all attempts to figure out to what extent the Bush administration has spied upon us all.

On October 24th of last year, Barack Obama's campaign released a statement on the issue:

"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

What's white, in a trench, and disappears?!

 


Ice on Mars! 

How's it feel to be frozen?! Yeah, ice is nice!  
This. This is ice. This is what happens to water when it gets too cold. 


This. This is Kent. This is what happens to people when they get too sexually frustrated. 


Now all we need is a rocketship, some vodka, vermouth, a cocktail shaker, an olive, and a martini glass, and Mars will be habitable by humans!

.

George Takei and his partner Brad Altman got their marriage license in West Hollywood today. The couple plan to be formally married in September at
the Japanese-American Museum in downtown Los Angeles.

"It feels glorious," said Takei, who played Sulu on "Star Trek," holding his license.

"I am the happiest guy in the world," Altman said. "I get to be married to George Takei."

"Now it has meaning," Takei explained to reporters. "We are going to be legitimately married in California. . . it's going to be the only day like this in our lives and it is the only day like this in the history of America."

He told reporters and a swelling crowd outside the West Hollywood city auditorium "may equality live long and prosper."

More photos from the event are available at http://www.flickr.com/photos/weho/

Gore endorses Obama... in a fairly interesting way, I think. 

He sounds different... not wooden Gore, circa 2000... not "An Inconvenient Truth" Al... more forceful and strident than I have heard him in awhile, more populist, and a bit more folksy and Tennessean. For instance, he didn't say "continue"... he said "con-tin-yah". 

For someone who gives speeches on a regular basis, these sorts of changes aren't accidents. Gore still seems a bit rough still on his timing and accentuations, but it does show a bit of what he is trying to accomplish -- strengthening Barack Obama's appeal to white working class voters. 

It remains to be seen how well this will work, or where he could campaign successfully for Obama, but here are a few thoughts:

- In 2000, Al Gore won amongst voters sixty and older, 51% to 47%.
- He won amongst those who had no High School degree, 59% - 39%. 
- He won amongst voters who made under 50K, doing especially well amongst voters under $30K.
- He won amongst working women by 19 points.
- He won amongst families with union employees by 22%, and by union employees themselves by 28%.
- He won amongst both working class and upper class.
- He won by 18% for those who viewed Social Security as their major issue.

It might be worthwhile to get Gore out there, talking to seniors, working women, working class labor, those in Florida and Michigan, and in key Appalachian battleground states. It might be worthwhile to revisit the idea of a "rural poverty tour" for Obama and friends as well. Gore could help to bring Obama some of the supporters Hillary Clinton and John Edwards were successful at reaching out to, and could help develop the levels of support necessary to put several close states into play. He also has a very large maillist, which could be helpful as well.

Frankly, I think Obama should consider Gore for VP... it would send the McCain camp into conniptions, as there would be absolutely no way of questioning the ability of Gore to do the job, to question his loyalty, or even to do much against the subtext argument that Gore *deserves* to win. 

Could be inevitable, really...

The Associated Press is facing a flurry of criticism by both bloggers *AND* major newspapers for sending seven DMCA takedown notices to the Drudge Retort, claiming that users linking to AP's stories were violating their copyright and committing "'hot news' misappropriation under New York state law." 

In none of the cases were the exerpts more than 79 words, and in one case, the post had as few as 18 words from an AP story, which clearly falls under the common definition of "fair use".  Indeed, the 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law specifically cites that the “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment" is one of those activities that is commonly viewed as fair use.

Sadly, the Associated Press draws no distinctions.... in fact, one of the DMCA notices sent by the AP specifically targeted a user's comment citing an AP story.

To make matters worse, AP Vice President and strategy director Jim Kennedy, when put on the spot, has chimed in with some distinctly unhelpful comments:

"We are not trying to sue bloggers. . . That would be the rough equivalent of suing grandma and the kids for stealing music. That is not what we are trying to do.”

Nope. You're merely *threatening* to sue grandma and the kids, while openly accusing them of being thieves for having the audacity to cite your stories and promote your business. Distinction noted. I'm sure that if push came to shove, the Associated Press wouldn't actually take grandma and the kids to court, for fear that the judge would laugh at their case and make them pay grandma back for all her legal fees... plus penalties. 

I mean, why go to court, when fear and intimidation work so well against the 99.95% of people who don't have the money, time, and/or balls to risk the potentially catastrophic downside of fighting such policies?!  

So, you'd normally think that the pushback would stop at the blog level, wouldn't you?! Well, apparently not.  Indeed, the Washington Post's riposte is remarkably sharp and pointy...

"So here's our new policy on A.P. stories: they don't exist. We don't see them, we don't quote them, we don't link to them. They're banned until they abandon this new strategy, and I encourage others to do the same until they back down from these ridiculous attempts to stop the spread of information around the Internet."

And so I will ban / ignore articles by the Associated Press... and I encourage all of you to do the same, until AP apologizes to bloggers and backs down from their position.

Feels kind of strange siding with "the man" to help stick it to the other man, don't it?! 


 

Israel's former Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz -- who is quite likely to become Israel's next Prime Minister, as their current PM may soon step down over corruption charges -- has announced that "if Iran continues its nuclear weapons programme, we will attack it . . . Other options are disappearing. The sanctions are not effective. There will be no alternative but to attack Iran in order to stop the Iranian nuclear programme."

Oh... and he also said that such an operation could only be conducted with US support, which he more-or-less took for granted.

...and so, oil jumped $11 a barrel on Friday, to a new record high. It is estimated that for every dollar increase in the price of oil, the price of gas increases by 2.5 cents a gallon... so expect prices to go up about another 27 cents shortly, with accompanying price increases from all those businesses whose shipping costs increase with higher gas prices.  

Inflation, insane gas prices *AND* open conflict with Iran?! Gee... thanks Mofo! Your security comes first, even if it means another generation of preemptive wars!

So, why is it necessary for US leaders to reject and denounce Rev. Wright or Pastor John Hagee, but nobody finds it neccessary to reject and denounce Israel's crappy leadership when their fearmongering sucks tens of billions of dollars out of our country and pushes us towards openended conflicts we can't afford?!