Mighty and Powerful Gods

Well it's about time I did something here. As far as Kahn, Frejak and I are concerned, 2008 doesn't start till we say it starts, so we'll get back to you when the change is official. Before you ask, no, it has nothing to do with my crazy Solstice/Equinox holidays or the Chinese new year. We're just not happy with the start as yet.

Anyhoo... I was digging around on Google image search for a new avatar. Kahn and I have a long standing joke revolving around the main characters from Dreamworks 'The Road to El Dorado'. It's commonly accepted that he's Tulio (because he loves the monies) and I am Miguel (because I love making his life more difficult). I found what I was looking for after a while and added a bit of dialogue (as is my want) and here's what I have:

Yeah, I'm something like that...

This is all very nice as far as stories go, but it's not actually the point of my post. The point of my post comes from where I found my little image. What is my point I hear you say? Quite simply it's that guys are not the only ones that have on occasion thought that a cartoon character can ring their bell so to speak. Indeed whoever this 'sammyjaynton@hotmail.com' is, her little web-shrine to him makes it quite clear that Miguel is hers and we can't have him. Now, does this mean that because I will occasionally use his likeness as an on-line avatar that she's likely to take offence? I hope not. Still, it's interesting to see someone get so tied up in this sort of thing.

Now you can calm down, I'm not actually taking jabs at her (for a change) I just honestly find this sort of thing interesting. We've all seen people have a sort of fantasy crush on a movie star or fictional character. I'm sure I could type up a name or two and get a reaction. That sort of thing is generally accepted. Johnny Depp. Why then is it so much more ridiculous when the object of such fantasies is animated? For most of us, we know that it's all just a fantasy that is unlikely to happen. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that at the end of the day, why make fun of someone for fantasising about a cartoon character. It's not that different to fantasising about a movie star and really, shouldn't we be concentrating all our ridicule on Scientologists anyway? Seriously, what the hell is wrong with those people?

-Salem
I'm having an awesome day today, so Scientology has to be in for it!

Death by Misadventure

If I was planning on being buried, that's what I would want on my tombstone. It would be an epic work of the blackest granite with 'Death by Misadventure' in towering gold letters. The angle would be set so that in the evenings, just as the last rays of the sun pass over it, the whole of it seems to burn with an inner fire and when the moon takes the place of the sun, the pale beams catch on the myriad of hidden glyphs, highlighting the true unearthly beauty of such a statement. Yes indeed, it would be a wonder to behold and a fitting sentiment to match my somewhat strange and mysterious life.

Ok, that may be a little dramatic, but it's the kind of remark that makes you think in epic terms. You're probably wondering what I'm on about, so I'll fill you in a little. In previous centuries, particularly in the 1800's I believe, when somebody, anybody died due to either an accident or via an inexplicable occurrence, quite often their death certificate listed cause of death as 'Death by Misadventure'. I'm unsure if this practice is still in use, but with medical and forensic science advancing as it is, I find it unlikely. Anyhow, sometimes other things which may have caused a family some embarrassment or scandal (such as a family member committing suicide) would also be listed as 'Death by Misadventure'. The list of things that would become DBM on a death certificate is quite impressive and unless you know the actual way in which a person died, it can really leave you with a sense of wonder and perhaps even a little in awe of what their life must have been like for them to finally succumb to the deadly clutches of this dreaded misadventure. In a sense, they were nobler times because a misfortune such as suicide was gently nudged aside by a physician and a verdict of DBM in order to spare the family in it's time of grief. In another sense it was a golden time for murderers as with one well placed bribe to the attending physician, 'Death by a knife wound to the throat' became 'Death by Misadventure' and may never be investigated.

My point was however that it invokes a sense of the mysterious and doesn't require the mind to dwell on the horrible facts of death. I like that. I have in my family tree someone whose death was deemed to be a DBM. I have no idea if he was worth thinking about really, but I'm far more curious about his life than many of my other ancestors simply because of that. I'm sure that it was probably something like he got drunk and fell face first into his evening porridge and drowned, but because I have no way of finding out, he will always be at least a little enigmatic to my way of thinking. For now I imagine that he died during a daring raid of some Faustian pit below the earth, where evil cultists were sacrificing the fair maidens from his nearby town to unspeakably evil gods, and although he gave up his life in that unholy place, the plans of his enemies were thwarted due to his heroic efforts that brought the whole complex down upon their accursed heads.

If history had not come up with such a marvellous idea as DBM (which is simply adored by literature), I can safely say that none of it would have been even remotely as interesting as it actually is. When I die, that's what I want listed as my cause of death. I don't care if all the other grisly details are listed on an attached sheet, giving readouts of blood toxins and the various conditions of random body parts, just as long as on the short version it reads:

Name: LeSerne, Salem S.
Cause of Death: Death by Misadventure
D.O.B: 1980
Age: 35

Or something like that anyway. I think it's a vastly more dignified way to go and if I must at some point shuffle off this mortal coil, then I would at least like to do it with some style. I don't really plan on dying at all mind you, so I can assure you that my DBM won't be a hushed up suicide. Even if it was though, you're not likely to find out from my death certificate and that's the part that I'm so enamoured of. One last chance to leave people guessing.

-Salem
Life by Misadventure. Ahh the stories I could tell you!

I are be presenting a Award!

Here, I present to you the winner of the San Jose State University's 2007 Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest, Mr. Jim Gleeson. He has mangled our language to such an extent that after reading this, you will lose 37 of your 5 senses. Permanently. I should also mention that the aim of this particular contest is to find the worst possible example of such a literary train-wreck to serve as only the first sentence of a nonexistent work of fiction. Enjoy!

Gerald began - but was interrupted by a piercing whistle which cost him ten per cent of his hearing permanently, as it did everyone else in a ten-mile radius of the eruption, not that it mattered much because for them 'permanently' meant the next ten minutes or so until buried by searing lava or suffocated by choking ash - to pee,

The only positive thing about this is that he had to try to do such damage. In fact, this was one of 20 entries that he submitted. The most disheartening however is that teenagers these days would still find it perfectly acceptable. I weep for the future. Did I remember to mention that the 37 senses you just lost was permanent, and that permanent does not mean just for the next 10 minutes?

-Salem
At least it wasn't written in 'Contracted Text Message' or I'd have killed myself.

Rock Concert Movement #237:

Taking the audience on a Jungian journey into the collective unconscious, using the shadow as a metaphor for the primal self that gets repressed by the modern persona and also by using an underground setting and labyrinth office design to represent both the depths of the psyche and the dungeon-like isolation of our increasingly mechanistic society which prevents people from finding satisfying work or meaningful connections with others.

-Salem
The links will help you understand the complexities of #237

Need some help?

Well, I have to say thanks to Sarah Jayne for this one. It really is one of the better forwards I've ever seen as is evidenced by the fact that I'm posting it up.

I must confess that given the chance to write a column that delt with this sort of thing, my responses would be fairly similar. God I love messing with people's heads!

-Salem
I wonder what happens when I put the electrodes... here!

Magic Hands! (and they're not mine for a change)

Ok, this is another one I found on Fark, but it's so good, I had to put it up. On a recent trip to Albania, George W. had his watch stolen by someone in a crowd of 'supporters'. I'm so glad that it didn't happen here or we'd be up for another 50 years of convict jokes. Anyhow, here's the video footage. He loses his watch at about the 1 minute mark, so watch carefully:

Bonus time! The White House have claimed that the presidents watch wasn't stolen! No, he just very quickly took it off and put it in his pocket so as not to catch on anyone or anything in the crowd. Wow! This guy is beter than Clinton and his sax any day. He can undo the buckle on his watch using the same hand that the watch is strapped to!!! Do another trick Mr. President, pleeeeeeeease?

American logic strikes again.

Here's an article that highlights why Australians have such a low opinion of Americans in general. I think you should read it very carefully.

Casino bans author of Word for being lucky

Submitted by Paul McNamara on
Thu, 06/07/2007 - 2:42pm.

Gambling is for suckers ... and I love it anyway.

But the truth of the first part is what makes this next part so unfathomable: The casino moguls at Harrah's Entertainment have barred Richard "Quiet Lion" Brodie - best known as the original author of Microsoft Word - from gambling in or entering any of its properties, including Caesar's Palace, home of the World Series of Poker.

Brodie's crime?

No, he didn't cheat.

He's been too lucky.

Brodie explains on his blog:

On May 10, Harrah's sent certified letters to several high rollers informing them that their business was no longer wanted at Caesars Palace or any of the other Harrah's properties in Nevada, California, and Arizona. I was one of them. I called the office of Tom Jenkins, regional vice president, and got a call back from Terry Byrnes, the VP of customer service. He told me I was being 86ed because they couldn't figure out how to make a profit off me.

Now understand, the only games I play are poker and video poker. In poker, the house makes a 100% guaranteed profit straight off the top. In video poker, the house controls every aspect of the game: the pay tables, the amount of the house edge, and the promotions and incentives they offer. There is no way to use skill - or even cheat - to beat video poker. You can't count cards. You can't peek at the dealer's hole card. It's a machine. The best you could possibly hope for is to play computer-perfect, which I don't, and even if that were possible the machine still has a maximum theoretical payout chosen by the casino. The only thing the casino can't control is luck. One reason I like video poker is because you can get lucky and win. You hit a royal flush every 40,000 hands or so. If you're lucky enough to hit two, you're ahead! If you hit three, you're ahead for a long time!

Boy, have I been lucky at Harrah's.

I hit four huge royal flushes in the last year at three of the Las Vegas Harrah's properties. Not surprisingly, I'm ahead, although I've put 80% of it back. This seems to rub them the wrong way. But I have trouble imagining the thought process that would cause someone to decide that kicking out one of your most loyal customers is an appropriate solution to the problem of him having extremely good luck. If they think the machines are too loose, make them tighter. If they think they are giving me too much in comps, give less. They control every aspect of the game. Except luck. And kicking out players who have been lucky makes about as much sense as banning people from playing the lottery because they win it.

Doesn't make a lick of sense. Of course, it just goes to show that the private interests who control gambling in this country are every bit as unprincipled and hypocritical as the government interests who share that control.

You need to be a poker player to understand Brodie's anguish at being denied his seat at the World Series of Poker.

But you don't even need to be a gambler to understand the stupidity and injustice here.

And here's the source: Network World

Now, I understand that there are a few smart people over in the U.S. but this just grinds my gears. Don't mess with a guy that's got a spot at the World Poker Championship! Actually, just don't mess with people who play poker. It's just not right.

-Salem
Sore losers? Nah.... couldn't be. It's a casino, they never lose!

:D vs. D:

-Salem

If we don't pick on the Emo's, how will they get their daily dose of depression?

Versatility Plus

To add to my last post, think on this. Recently, somebody converted an Xbox 360 into a handy lap-top style configuration. It's pretty nifty and is one of the more well known console customisation projects. Take a look, it's really quite interesting.

Pretty cool huh? I'd be stoaked to own one of these myself.

Moving on, what have the PS3 people got I wonder? Perhaps the first 3rd gen system that can fly you to safety in event of a volcanic erruption? No, they have something even better! They have... The Grill! Yeah, people were willing to pay a thousand bucks just to rip one asunder and implant a George Forman Grill into it. Nothing says 'Loyalty to my chosen system' more than trashing one and making a grill.

And for those that can't get enough, there's a website devoted to this. I love the world in which I live.

-Salem
I really should see if there are any cool Wii mods out there...

Death to the Sony and the media!

I have not the words to describe how much I hate the media, specifically our so called "News". Practically everywhere you go on the net, you find horrible reports about the PS3 and to be honest, you wont get anything better here. That they think $1000.00 is a fair price for a game system is a travesty. My point is though that our "reputable news broardcasts" are making the PS3 out to be the biggest and best thing in the world ever. THE PS2 IS STILL OUTSELLING IT AS ARE THE XBOX 360 AND THE Wii!!!

Sorry about that, but I hate the way the media think that they can tell you what you should like based on who pays them the most to say it. Screw that. The sales are bad, the attitude that Sony have is bad, the planning is even worse than when Microsoft released the original Xbox and on the whole, I'm sick of them and yet the news here is portraying the PS3 as if the only reason electricity was harnesed was to power it.

I want Sony to die and I want them to die now. As a life-long gamer, I am offended by both the behaviour of Sony and the worms that do their bidding. Grow a spine and tell Sony to go fuck themselves.

-Salem
I just can't accept Sony being on my planet anymore.

A Personal Struggle

No, it's probably not what you think. My struggle is that I can never decide when it comes to lawyers. Do I love them? Do I hate them? It's hard to say. Today, I think I'll concede that I love this one at least. I hope she's a looker and here's why:

NFL fumbles DMCA takedown battle, could face sanctions

By Jacqui Cheng Published: March 20, 2007 - 11:35AM CT

It's no secret that some content owners don't seem to understand how the DMCA works—that, or they simply don't care when sending mass takedown notices. This seems to be the case with the recent saga of legal maneuvers between the National Football League (NFL) and Brooklyn Law School professor Wendy Seltzer. The two have been going back and forth with DMCA-related "requests" since early February—with YouTube stuck in between—and in the process, the NFL itself appears to have violated the DMCA.

The story began when Seltzer posted a YouTube clip on her personal blog in early February. The clip showed the NFL's copyright message that aired during the Super Bowl:

This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience, and any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is prohibited

Seltzer took exception to this claim—as it clearly makes no concession for fair use—and wanted to show her students how content owners are beginning to exaggerate their rights.

Five days later, she received a DMCA takedown notice through YouTube, saying that the NFL had claimed copyright violation and that the clip had been removed. Ironic? Perhaps, but it gets better. Seltzer, law professor by day, is also staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) by night and founder of Chilling Effects, a web site dedicated to educating the public about online rights. Very well aware of her own rights under DMCA, she promptly sent a counter-notification to YouTube (generated by the Chilling Effects counter-notice generator, no less), citing Section 512 of the DMCA saying that YouTube must replace the material if they receive a counter-notification asserting "good faith belief" that the material removal was a mistake.

Several weeks after that, Seltzer's Super Bowl copyright notice clip came back online as a result of her counter-notification. Seltzer was happy that the system appeared to work the way it was designed to work and assumed that the NFL had decided not to sue to keep the video offline. She was wrong, however. Just 12 days later, the NFL filed yet another takedown notice with YouTube for the clip, and YouTube complied once again.

This is where the saga starts to get messy. Seltzer's counter-notification—which was forwarded to the NFL from YouTube—clearly described her use of the clip as fair use: "an educational excerpt featuring the NFL's overreaching copyright warning aired during the Super Bowl." As Seltzer outlines in her blog post, the NFL's only option in response to her counter-claim would be to force her to remove the clip via court proceedings. This obviously did not happen, and instead, the NFL chose to ignore her claims completely. After receiving her counter-notification claiming fair use, sending another takedown notice over the same content is considered a knowing misrepresentation that the clip is infringing, according to DMCA section 512(f)(1). Under the DMCA, the NFL would be liable for all legal fees incurred by the alleged infringer, along with damages.

Essentially, the NFL is now in violation of the same law that it is using to try to protect its own content. And, instead of following the proper procedures outlined in the DMCA, the NFL appears to be choosing to beat her over the head with takedown requests. Would this be happening if YouTube was not caught in the middle, hosting the clip for Seltzer? There is no way to know, but it seems that the trend du jour is for content owners to target YouTube with these requests, knowing that YouTube is likely to comply immediately and ask questions later. But Seltzer isn't likely to let this issue rest now, and seems more than happy to continue pushing back on the issue until it goes to court. It's hard to imagine that a court would do anything but decide in Seltzer's favor, and if that were to happen, it may force content owners to be more cautious about sending takedown notices in the future.

Here's the link to the article. I just get giddy when a large company/corporation/whatever decides that it can push people around and they push the wrong person. In this case, the NFL has pushed a lawyer into a legal battle and the lawyer was the one that actually knew what they were talking about. It looks like the NFL lost big time and man do I love that. There may be hope for humans after all.

-Salem
I am the law!

Dodging the rules.

I often wonder why more smart people (and I mean actual smart people, not the kind that win 'Sale of the Century') don't become really, really dodgy people. I'm not talking about a company CEO that writes up a contract that screws over their client/opposinge company/etc. Nor do I mean the kind of people that manage to skim off millions of dollars off the profits of their company. I'm talking Mafia dodgey. Not to say that the real Mafia is dodgey of course, I'm talking movie Mafia.

Sounds odd I know, but really, with a bit of planning and foresight, you could accomplish amazing things. Again I should point out that not all dodgey activity is 'bad' or 'evil'. Dodgey can just mean side-stepping a few laws that get in the way of things that should happen sometimes. For example, Batman is a little dodgey in his opperations, but he does undeniably good work.

Either way, it's sad to see that so many fools and idiots try get away with things that they really don't have the capacity for. Saying that though does bring to mind the fact that they never put on T.V. shows such as 'Worlds Smartest Villans' do they? It's always 'Worlds Dumbest'. I guess the masses prefer to see some moron getting caught so that they can feel superior. A wasted gesture in my books as the majority of people who watch for that reason wouldn't have the capacity to come up with the plan that those guys mess up.

This is probably why I've come to love movies such as 'Ocean's Eleven' and 'The Score'. The criminals are smart and they have a plan. They know how to adjust to counteract any unknown variables. Then you have movies like 'The Princess Bride' and 'The Three Musketeers' where the heros are definately dodgey, but they get the job done through raw skill and precision.

For me, I've had some serious opportunities to be dodgey. Running cars for instance. I lived on the N.S.W/Vic. boarder and was offerd a job taking stolen cars from the N.S.W. side down to a Melbourne chop-shop. Turns out that stolen cars become a lot more difficult to trace once they cross a state boarder and if you're quick, you can get something like that done before anyone can mobalise to get in the way. A quick change of plates makes all the difference. The point is though that it was there even though I knew better than to take it.

Personally, I'd rather try be the anti-hero: Be dodgey, get the job done and in the end, although I've broken a few laws here and there, the end result is a morally favourable one. The problem with this option though is that if you get caught in the process, you will be tried and conviced over the laws you have broken and no thought will ever be given to the good you were trying to accomplish. I guess it's just easier to be bad.

Wrapping up, I think society has almost degraded enough for me to feel that we need the odd vigilante on the streets. Not the crazy kind that thinks he's the Highlander (that little incident in Sydney was hilarious by the way), but a Batman-esque kind of guy that knows what he's doing, has a solid and irreproachable moral compass and the guts to get the job done. If there's a benevolant benefactor out there that agrees, let me know and I'll be happy to send in my resume. After all, I'd love to change the world, even if nobody knows it's me that's doing it.




I love that I know just the right people that could make it work.

A Few too Many

Heraclitus, a philosopher in 500 AD said that "It is better to hide ignorance, but it is hard to do this when we relax over wine".

I find (and i'm sure this is a sign of my age) that the more I go out drinking, the less I understand why we do it. Perhaps this is just a reflexive response to my night on Saturday, which unfortunately did involve some regurgitation, memory loss and most unfortunately, far, far too much dancing. Were I younger I probably would have uttered some falsehood about never drinking again, which would promptly be forgotten the next weekend.

I am reminded of Robert Benchley who said “Drinking makes such fools of people, and people are such fools to begin with, that it’s compounding a felony”.
Truly I cannot understand how people do this regularly, I especially find Alcoholism unfathomable at times like this. From the pains deep within my very bones after such a night, unsettled stomach, wasted money, and embarrassment from simply not knowing whether i've made a fool of myself or not (thankfully I hadn't) I just could not imagine repeating such an evening, especially the next day.

Of course I am not saying that I'll never drink again, I guess i'm hoping that from this night I will learn some restraint. And I don't say this as a petulant whine, but a true and reverent wish. I am no longer filled with the desire to waste all my money on a night that I can't remember in the end. When I was younger I remember saying that I didn't actually like the taste of alcohol and drank purley for the purpose of getting drunk. I guess I am at the point in life where I wish to reverse that statement. Going forward I would prefer to enjoy the company I keep, and sip on a tastful quality drink. I am still willing to get drunk after all as Henry Thoreau said "Do not be too moral. You may cheat yourself out of much life" I am simply no longer wanting getting drunk to be the goal, and for the level of drunk to be considered enjoyable at the time, and on the following morning.

-Kahn

Where there's Smokers, there's fire.

I am a smoker. I feel no personal shame that I smoke. I don't let it rule my life. I don't rush out of the office to smoke every 20 minutes, I wait for my lunch break before leaving the building just like all the non-smokers have to. I don't force my habit on others which is to say that if I'm with someone that doesn't smoke, I will not smoke around them unless I know that they are ok with me doing so. I even chew on mints if I'll be spending time in close proximity to a non-smoker. On the whole, I think I make a serious effort to not inflict my habit on anyone else.

Here's the issue that I have at the moment. While many non-smoking groups are yelling and screaming about us smokers 'forcing' our habit upon them in the form of passive smoking, they have gone and forced their own non-smoking oppinion on us. Now I think I do a fairly passable job of pretending to ignore the ignorance of others when faced with it, but I will not stand for that kind of hypocracy. Telling me that I have no right to force my second-hand smoke on them and then forcing me to smoke only where they tell me to. I was ok with designated smoking areas, I saw that as a perfect compromise. We had our space and they had theirs. No worries there. Now, however, they have decided to strip us of even a segregated area and have stopped smokers from legally smoking anywhere near the places that normal people would be.

We can't smoke within 4 meters of any puplic establishment or shop-front (which for any imperialists is about thirteen feet, one and a half inches give or take an eighth of an inch). That effectively means that if you want to smoke, you have to stand out in the middle of the road in most places. This would obviously cause it's own problems, but they are immaterial at this stage of my dissertation. They have taken away the smoking areas of almost every cafe I've been to. Coffee shops are the same. You're not supposed to smoke near a bus stop and the train stations are all now completely off limits. Now, I'm not a calm person at the best of times, but this is an outrage that I'm not taking kindly too.

Again, some of the changes I could accept. The train station thing I'm ok with for the most part. You couldn't smoke in an underground station anyway and that makes semse to me. The cafe and coffee shops though... what the hell? We were already sitting outside and away from the non-smoking sections indoors so what the hell was the problem? Wasn't it enough that we were willing to endure the scorching heats of summer and icy winds of winter to indulge in our habit while you sat in the climate controlled interior?

I could maybe accept it if passive somking caused you more damage than having the scent of cigarette smoke in your nostrils. It doesn't though folks. Now I know it may sound tacky to quote Penn and Teller as a source, but since they are known quite well for debunking shams in a rather flamboyant style, I think it appropriate. Hunt down their show 'Bull Shit' and watch eppisode 4 of season 1 titled 'Second Hand Smoke'. The numbers are staggering. There is about a 1 in a million chance that second hand smoke will raise the chance of you getting cancer. The likelyhood is negligable so get over it. If it was simply a comfort thing which is to say you don't like the smell, fine, I can accept that, but if you use second-hand smoke causing you cancer as an excuse... you can burn in the flames of hell which are incidentally, the flames at the end of Lucifer's 16 milligram 'Davidoff Classic' cigarette (He's all class that guy).

So what am I going to do about it all? Well I have one idea. Since I smoke for enjoyment rather than addiction (I can tell this because I rarely seem to be 'hanging' for a smoke, but do enjoy one with coffee and such), I'm guessing that that means there are other that do the same. As such, I'm going to seek help from some friends. See they're planning on opening a book store / coffee shop. Since they too are smokers, I'm going see if they will hold a 'Smokers Only Day'. The first 'X' number of people to come in will recieve a free cigarette (provided by myself if need be) and all the profits for the day will go towards cancer research / charities. If you don't smoke or can't prove that you do, you will not be allowed entry on the day. It's subtle, but I feel it will get a point across. And on that note, I'm done.

I'm going out for a smoke. Where are my Davidoffs?



I've added a link to Penn & Teller in the links bar. Seriously, track that show down.

Telephonic wonders

For when a phone calls throw situations that threaten to turn a heart to stone there can be only one dignified response.

“Imperious, choleric, irascible, extreme in everything, with a dissolute imagination the like of which has never been seen, atheistic to the point of fanaticism, there you have me in a nutshell, and kill me again or take me as I am, for I shall not change.”

Last Will and Testament of the Marquis de Sade

Machiavellian thoughts

After reading through this and sitting myself outside for a smoke to contemplate.
Not contemplating anything in particular just contemplating because I can and no one can stop me.
Leading as much to wondering whether or not any of our current world leaders have read any Machiavelli. Of course listening to Janis Joplin and a bit of Marley while doing this probably wasn’t helping at all.
However at one point in “The Prince” by Machiavelli he goes to examine whether or not it is better for a leader to be loved or feared.

“… the prince should make himself feared in such a way that, even if he is not loved, he avoids being hated, since being feared and not hated can easily go together…If he should need to take anyone’s life, he should do it when there is a suitable justification and a demonstrable cause…With executions it is the opposite, reasons are more exceptional and less numerous.”

Who is it possibly that our “Leader of the Free World” in particular has decided to make himself an image of? Caligula? At least we can be happy that Mr Bush doesn’t have a sister called Drusilla. Lenin? We can already see various traits of similarity with Lenin in may areas that he is bringing in, not quite the Bolshevik dictatorship but looking on a broad spectrum at policies and ideas that have been and are being proposed it is not such a far cry from it.
As for Howard, well I don’t think anyone has seen whining like this since Schuschnigg and the German “invasion” of Austria in 1936. Only difference with this is instead of Schuschnigg actually trying to halt the movement of Germany into Austria he forgot one important thing. The Austrian people and what they wanted. So he jumped on a plane to Berchtesgaden (I hear that Eva was very fond of running around there in swimmers and little skirts. Seriously.) in the attempt to suck back up to Hitler and tell him that no he wasn’t really trying to stand up for himself and his country by holding a referendum. Hitler’s response whilst historically noted is a bit boring. I much prefer my own interpretation of it. Being that he laughed in his face, threw him out and marched on Austria.
All in all I have to say I find it all quite disturbing and wonder what will happen when it actually comes to a time that someone in Australia actually does something for us instead of currying favour with someone else.

With a smile as I finished my smoke outside I started thinking of something someone wrote that gave me a good condescending smile that I could bring inside with me. So I thought I’d drag it out and share it, because damn I like it.

“ For thousands of years, human beings had screws up and trashed and crapped on this planet, and now history expected me to clean up after everyone. I have to wash out and flatten my soup cans. And account for every drop of used motor oil.
And I have to foot the bill for nuclear waste and buried gasoline tanks and landfilled toxic sludge dumped a generation before I was born.
I held the face of mister angel like a baby or a football in the crook of my arm and bashed him with my knuckles, bashed him until his teeth broke through his lips. Bashed him with my elbow after that until he fell through my arms into a heap at my feet. Until the skin was pounded thin across his cheekbones and turned black.
I wanted to breathe smoke.
Birds and deer are a silly luxury, and all the fish should be floating.
I wanted to burn the Louvre. I’d do the Elgin Marble with a sledgehammer and wipe my arse with the Mona Lisa. This is my world, now.
This is my world, my world, and those ancient people are dead.”

Chuck Palahniuk - Fight Club

How much of everything now is our world?
Are we looking at it as James Bovey did in 1642 as he cites Machiavelli as a blameless observer of the evils of others, and goes onward to lay blame to Mahiavelli for a measure of the corruption of the rule of Charles I?
I suppose it comes down to what we are willing to be aware of and how that in itself is used.
My personal thought result after having this very relieving vent is that perhaps it has been to long since theres been a good revolution.

World news and it's sad reflections.

Recent news has been pretty dismal. We had a blackhawk fall off of the Kanimbla, some anti-progress dullards up in Toowoomba complaining about having to vote in a refferendum and Hizbulla are trying to force a democratically elected government to do what their little political group wants. Granted that the last one was in another country, but I like to think that since we're all supposedly part of this "human race" thing that it still deserves to be mentioned. I've never been to confidant in humanity anyhow, so I'm not all that shocked.

That aside, all the news worth seeing is usually posted up on Fark so I don't need to tell you about it. I'm not sure why I decided to mention all this, I just thought that I may as well post up something at least a little interesting. Won't happen again I promise. Either way, it's a step towards showing you all just how messed up humanity can be. I guess that the blackhawk thing was more of an accident, but even so, how do you miss the Kanimbla with a blackhawk?

I'm sure that at some point we'll either destroy ourselves (be it through wrecking the planet, war or some completely half-brained experiment involving time travel and the goal of creating a utopian sosiety) or we'll finally realise that logic and common sense are the real things that we need to work towards. Untill then, I'm most likely going to continue to point out what I think is wrong with the world. Should be a wild ride for someone I'm sure.

As an after-thought, I thought this was interesting. The link popped up on my g-mail account and I thought I'd share as it confuses me a little. I like the end result, but am amazed that it happened at the same time. Here's the image, click it for the link:


-Salem

Today's random link: Weapons that don't exist but should