My mind has been blown.

In WWI, a sort of catch-all term for British soldiers was "Tommy".

The Germans, of course, were "Jerry".

Tommy and Jerry.

Tom and Jerry!

This is better than when I realized that the Borg of Star Trek were, in fact, cyborgs.

Also:

Apparently, the evil of teh gay!!11 is an eviler evil than the evil of the terrorists in our War on Terrorism. (Which, actually, we're not fighting anymore, but I guess kicking gays out of their jobs is more important than liberating Iraqis and stopping people from, y'know, acts of terrorism.)

Update: my good chum Ouroboros says:

Umm. He's allowed to be homosexual, he's just not allowed to be homosexual in the Army. Their policies may not make a whole lot of sense, but they're not doing anything illegal, or anything they said they wouldn't do.

First of all: They may have done something illegal, but more on that in a second. My problem with it is twofold: One, it's intolerable idiotic, because why the hell would we possibly have a high demand for linguists, and our military's not at all overextended, so of course they should spend eight months dedicated to a pointless witch-hunt.

Now, let's look at some DoD directives which dictate the procedure for "Fact-Finding Inquiries into Homosexual Conduct," kindly found here. I quote:

Commanders or appointed inquiry officials shall not ask, and members shall not be required to reveal, whether a member is a heterosexual, a homosexual, or a bisexual. However, upon receipt of credible information of homosexual conduct (as described in section C., above) commanders or appointed inquiry officials may ask members if they engaged in such conduct. But the member should first be advised of the DoD policy on homosexual conduct (and rights under Article 31, UCMJ, if applicable). Should the member choose not to discuss the matter further, the commander should consider other available information. Nothing in this provision precludes questioning a member about any information provided by the member in the course of the fact-finding inquiry or any related proceeding, nor does it provide the member with any basis for challenging the validity of any proceeding or the use of any evidence, including a statement by the member, in any proceeding. [emphasis mine]

And I quote from the article:

"The director brought everyone into the hallway and told us about this e-mail they had just received and blatantly asked, 'Which one of you are gay?'" Copas said.

Copas later complained to the director and his platoon sergeant, saying the questions violated "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

"They said they would watch it in the future," Copas said. "And they said, even specifically then, 'Well, you are not gay are you?' And I said, 'no.'"

So, a commanding officer gets a random email, probably signed by a "John Smith", and decided it was "credible information". I'm also not quite sure about this:

On Dec. 2, investigators formally interviewed Copas and asked if he understood the military's policy on homosexuals, if he had any close acquaintances who were gay, and if he was involved in community theater. He answered affirmatively.

Does knowing homosexuals put you at higher risk or something? Obviously, if you're involved in local theater and you know some gay guys, you're unfit to serve, or...something.

But my real problem with the situation is far less specific than any one person's conduct in this one instance. My problem is primarily with this, from the same DoD directive linked above:

6. The Service member bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.

I know at least one member of the armed forces very well. If I were to send an annonymous letter to her commanding officer stating that she is a lesbia, and maybe invent a few 'incidents' to give it a bit of detail and depth, then the onus would be on her to "prove" that she is in fact heterosexual.

Fine: If you want to spend huge amounts of time and money disrupting, if not destroying, the careers of otherwise able, capable, and willing service members, fine. Quite honestly, when it comes to gay rights, there are (in my opinion) more important battles to fight before taking on the behemoth of the military.

However: we live in a nation where the basis of our entire judicial system (and therefore, the root of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and pretty much everything) consists three words: Presumption of innocence. Until the prosecutors prove it in some investigative or judicial matter, you're innocent of the accusations. If an American is accused of a wrong by the government, any branch of the government, it borders on unconstitutional to say "Until you explicitly prove otherwise, we assume you're guilty."

Also, c some interesting stuff on federal civilian discrimination. America? Crazy place.

Breaking news!

The President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom agree: People in the mideast should probably stop blowing each other to shit, and they should stop doing it soon.

Seriously: what the hell is up with them hesitating to endorse a cease-fire? The cynic in me wants to say that this is just an honest depiction of how world politics really are: rich, Christian white men in the Western world fucking around with the lives of a whole lot of non-rich, Christian white men, mostly for their own personal gain.

The naive optimist in me wants to say that these men are all, if nothing more, far more experienced in these matters than I am, and likely know what they're doing. No doubt they have important, valid, respectable and well-thought-out reasons for not flat-out demanding an immediate cease-fire.

At the point where those two parts of me meet, overlapping and leaning in varying directions, I think that this is a step in the right direction. A delayed step, yes, but better late than never, right? It's also an indication of my first (cynical) point: Bush and Blair are kicking back in a mansion in DC, while hundreds of civilians get killed. At a time like this, there's no way to justify it being about politics. It must be about stopping the bombing at any political cost. I know it sounds intolerably simple-minded, but no civilians should die for the actions of their nations military. That's no how the civilized world works, and if we're going to insist on being the world's Safety Patrol, then we have to actually do it, step in where's needed, and not go away until they put down the guns.

What are they afraid of, that it'll destabilize the political situation in that region? Because that's the only thing I can think of, and I'm fairly certain that happened quite some time ago (eg, starting here ["Hey Cain, where's Abel?"], continuing right on through here [hello, Imperial Britain], and extremely recent history speaks for itself).

Bob Ross! On YouTube!

The most mellow, pleasant-voiced, happy painter in the universe, Bob Ross, is on YouTube.

I think this is a big difference between PBS kids and 'normal' kids. Us PBS babes grew up on, amongst other things, Reading Rainbow and Bob Ross. I don't think anyone in the world ever set out to watch Bob Ross, but he's completely hypnotic.

Man, this brings me back.

Aaauurgh, it burns!

This month's winner for "Entirely intolerable and completely unnessecary headline pun":

Restaurant Owner Shaken by Koi Seizure

On the nature of big, fat, destructive things.

I started work today (mail drone in a real estate office, basically), and I'd already noticed previously that the building nextdoor to the office has an easy-to-miss plaque set in it, stating that the building had been completely destroyed, presumably by the Germans, in a zeppelin attack in 1915, and rebuilt in 1917.

Okay. Not something you see every day, especially not in the US. In fact, I can't think of a single American building that was ever destroyed in a zeppelin attack.

In other news, Americans are really fat. (Did you know that Googling 'britain obesity rates' sans quotes first gives you a BBC story about how Americans are fat? True.) According to the American Obesity Association says that you're obese if you have a BMI of 30 or more. 60 million Americans are; that's 30.5% of the adult population. In Britian, it's not overwhelming less, but it's only 22.5% of the adult population. However, look at the statistics for morbid or severe obesity (BMI of 40 or more): In Britain it's 2.6% of the population, whereas in the US, it's 4.7%.

What does this tell us? I'm not certain, but it's grossing me out.

London: Funny hats and scary walls.

So the other day (my last day of dull unemployment), I went out for a walk. Where should I go, I wondered. For no particular reason I headed south a few stops on the tube, and ended up in front of Buckingham Palace. For me, the first thing to register is: dear lord, that's a lot of camera-waving, map-checking tourists.

Lots of 'em.

There are also a number of men in very silly hats. I know that a favorite material for fancy military uniforms is wool, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's what their wearing. In that case, I respect the crap out of a man who can stand still for hours at a time, in 90-degree weather, wearing a heavy wool jacket and a bear on his head. (Note: my respect multiplies tenfold if the bear is still alive. British slackers.)

I my visit to get there shortly after the Changing of the Guard, figuring that the crowd might be slightly less then. I think I was wrong, but one thing did strike me: considering a big ceremonial parade thing with horses had just gone through there and there were a few thousand people milling about, it's a very clean area. When I first walked up there was one big gob of horse excrement in the street. It vanished within thirty seconds. Go British cleanliness!

This, apparently, is a monument to a former queen, though I forget which one. It's really pretty, though.

There are flowers, too, and the palace is right next to one of London's many parks.

While I'm certain that trying to climb the pretty, ornate front gate is frowned upon, I must admit there's a slight temptation to try.

Then, you leave the tourist swarm, go around the corner, and discover that the pretty, ornate gate abruptly turns into a "Piss off and don't even think about it", seven-foot-tall brick wall with spikes and a few feet of barbed wire (which looked like it could have been electrified) on top. This is a wall that does not say "Hello, I am protecting the very proper queen and her silly hats." This is a wall that says "I would be much more at home in, say, a Nazi concentration camp than across the street from Green Park." (I did not try to climb any fences.)

Then I headed down towards Westminster. The regular police looked a bit more comfortable, but they too wear silly hats.

The first time I went to New Mexico, it rained for three days. The first time I'm in London and it's sunny all the time.

I have no idea who this fellow was - he came out of the parliament building, stood around for a bit, and went back inside. He was rather uniquely dressed, wearing a excessively red blazer and a top hat. An actual top hat!

Westminster Abbey, which is big and apparently a collection of a couple churches, or something. It's also very pretty, and very old. All together, I think that London's capitol area is more interesting, in terms of architecture and history, than Washington DC. On the other hand, if I'm recalling correctly, DC feels less congested (due mostly to the Mall, no doubt).

And that, folks, is that.

Dogs love...books!

The local library, I've decided, is pretty decent. Not huge, but they have a decent selection, free wifi, and a good range of newspapers. Their website is also pretty easily navigable, and their catalogue, of course, is online.

One feature of their catalogue I am enamored with is that, whenever you go to a specific book, you get a box of links on the side, one of which will (theoretically) take you to the Amazon page for that book. Why is this nifty? In my opinion, the best thing ever is Amazon's "look inside" feature, which lets you check out the table of contents (if applicable), the first few pages, and another random excerpt from the book. Like a description but not certain if you want to bother picking up a certain book? Why not read a few pages right at home?

Anyway, I've discovered that occasionally the link from the library's site doesn't work, and you get Amazon's internal 404 page. Which...

Preface: I don't know if this is just on amazon.co.uk, or their US site as well. The internet is tricksy that way.

But...their 404 page has a Corgi on it. According to the image properties, his name is Rufus. Everyone, say hello to Rufus:

Hi, Rufus!

He's sorry he can't find your book, but don't you just want to give him a big hug and a belly rub? And then maybe steal him from the Queen?

Depressing state of affiars

What does it say about the world when the two most powerful countries in the world are pretty much controlled by one guy, and both heads of government are pretty ridiculously unpopular?

See? An old book says so!

Here's an...interesting Newsweek column. In it, a strange man begins by stating that the bible is the best book ever, and continues on to say that obviously all terrorists are arab, and we're doing our biblical duty to wage war in the name of fighting terrorism.

Apparently, "If you ...., then the terrorists have won!" goes all the way back to biblical times.

In which Arizonians continue to take the law into their own hands

This type of stuff pisses me off, mostly because it display a (thankfully fairly rare) combination of idiocy and arrogance that you really can only find in America. So when I saw an AP headline about more people in Arizona starting some sort of civilian patrol, I admit I was relieved to see that rather than hunting down the evil menace of thirsty, poor Mexicans, they're trying to protect their fellow citizens from serial killers.

Okay: I can't really argue with that, because it feels like sort if I argue against what their doing, then I'm coming down in support of serial killers. I'm not in any way pro-mass-murders, and murder in general is one of the very few things I will willingly say is completely and totally morally wrong.

That said, this bothers me. I don't know why, but something about the seemingly-inate American desire to take the law into your own hands, even in the best-intentioned, least-offensive way possible, irks me. It seems like a cultural holdover from the Wild West, I guess, and I personally would like to think that America has evolved past mindless lawlessness where it was basically every man for themselves, into a a slightly more mature society with laws and clear definitions of who's allowed to enforce the law and who's not.

Another part of my objection, of course, is where the hell are the police? If some situation is bad enough that a group of citizens literally take to the street in order to try to fix it, the police are very clearly not doing their job. Maybe that's actually why this story grates on me the way it does.

While I'm making this a long post: A police anecdote from yesterday. I was on the tube coming home, on the Picadilly line. I got on at Russell Square, which now has a plaque commemorating those killed between Russell Square and the next stop last July. At some stop, I'm not certain which one but it was somewhere between there and mine, I noticed a whole flock of London cops on the platform. They're imossible to miss, as they more often than not are wearing neon-yellow reflective visability vests. There were, I believe, about six of them, waiting in a group amongst the crowd on the platform. Then as the train stopped and the doors opened, they spread out and entered the train, seemingly one or two per car.

Well, huh, I thought. That's...interesting. And slightly unsettling. I'm not one prone to hysterical paranoia (I recall getting yelled at in high school for laughing at our lockdown drills), but when a large group of police suddenly spread out and get onto the train your own, it can lead one to think that perhaps it's not the best place to be.

Then I realized I suddenly had a problem. I'd been lucky enough to snag a seat, and it was the end seat, next to the glass barrier between the seats and the doors. The officer who had just stepped on was standing right next to me, mere inches away. Suddenly, my mind started into one of those stupid-yet-uncontrollable spirals: Okay, I'm a little nervous because the train is now full of cops and one is standing right next to me. Oh, crap, do I look nervous all the sudden? What if he looks down at me and sees that I look nervous? And my CD player is in my purse, so what if he's watching me obviously messing with something in my bag as I try to find the track I want, and he thinks *I'm* suspicious? Dammit, now I *DO* look nervous because I really don't want him to suddenly decide I'm a terrorist and arrest me or something!

The end result is fairly anticlimactic: He stood there and mostly ignored me, and I got off the train at my stop and walked home. I also had a perverse little voice in my mind telling me to just ride the train a bit further, and see if I could figure out why so many cops had gotten on, what were they up to and where were they going, but I decided against it. Probably wisely.

(Bonus unrelated anecdote: I'm sitting in a Starbucks right now and apparently Google thinks I'm in Germany. Why? It is a mystery.)

Mr. Bush, you are a nitwit and a jackass

Fund research that has the potential to save millions of lives and drastically increase the quality of life for so many more? Eradicate disease and problems like spinal cord damage, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimers, cancer, diabetes? Make it so that, rather than die as they wait years for a kidney, heart, liver, or other organ transplant, we can grow natural organs?

Doing so would apparently infringe upon the sanctity of life, or something.

I honestly don't have the words to talk about this. It's selfish and idiotic. Why? Because THOSE STEM CELLS ALREADY EXIST! The embryos have already been created, and are extremely literally going to be thrown away! We're not playing god and creating life, we're not creating anything solely for research purposes. In denying funding for this research Bush isn't defending anything beyond an archaic and simple-minded fear of scientific advancement; instead he's effectively mandating that extra embryos created in the course of IVF treatments are nothing more than biological waste to be disposed of.

This is arrogance of the highest level. I personally would love to see Bush go up to my grandmother (a cancer survivor) and tell her that yes, we could probably find ways to alleviate the suffering she went through for future generations, but we're not going to. Then I'd like to see him go up to a number of my friends and relatives who all have diabetes, and say that, yes, we could be doing research that would cure you from this disease that interferes with your life, constantly threatens your health, and cuts your life expectency short, but I don't think that's the right thing to do. Then he can go up to a friend of mine who's suffered from a serious spinal injury and say that, as President, he refuses to support the research that could cure him.

I can't bring myself to truly wish grievous harm on anyone, as everyone has some form of family, people who care about them and would also be hurt. But if I could do so, I really wouldn't hesitate to wish for Bush to, say, fall and break his neck. Let's see where your moral boundries fall then, you sanctimonious dick.

Camping, now with 50% less effort!

Many moons ago when I was but a young thing, I elected to spend five weeks of my life working on a volunteer trail-maintaince crew in a national park in Kentucky (don't ask, it made sense at the time). The first night, our crew leaders had us six teenagers do a teambuilding exercise, known as "put up two cheap and ancient tents while half of you are blindfolded and half of you can't speak". It was not, to say the least, the most efficient way of assembling a tent.

But if we'd had this amazingly awesome deal, no problem, man.

Blogging about blogging about books I've blogged about.

So, over at Slate - one of my daily must-read sites - a dude named David Plotz has been more or less doing what I did first semester of my sophomore year at St. John's. He's reading the bible and writing about it, so really the only minor difference is that he (presumably) is getting paid for doing so, while I was paying to do so.

Anyway, he's now up to Leviticus, and I've sort of been following along since he started writing, because it's interesting. About the beginning of Leviticus, he says this:

Which is why what I'm about to say is so incredibly unfair—namely that the author of Leviticus is a dreadful writer. He can't possibly be the same person (people) who wrote the cracking good stories of Exodus or Genesis. Leviticus is agonizingly repetitive. For example, it describes how exactly you sacrifice an animal. Then, a chapter later, it repeats those instructions, word for word, for a slightly different ritual (a "reparation" offering as opposed to a "purification" offering). It's very tedious, but I suppose it's unfair to blame the author, since it is a manual. The user guide for my new digital camera isn't beach reading either.

Amen (though I haven't actually read more than a few pages of Leviticus myself; I know it's not unusual). That's part what I find so fascinating about the bible, especially the old testament: In parts it's got some decent stories, but other parts are just dull and boring and repetitious. And yet, all those parts are still there. I'm certain there's some self-referencing passage somewhere in the bible that says not to cut out random bits even if they're no longer relevant or something, but it just strikes me as a prime example of why 'new media' will never ever replace books fully. Books are solid, tangible, and even the awful bits tend to survive, because you'd have to re-copy the entire rest of the thing otherwise. There's no delete key with pen and paper.

Anyway, the thing that caught my eye today was his take on some of the bits about slavery in the bible. This stuff is perfectly representative of why I have no tolerance for organized religion based on the judeochristian tradition: it's all built on one single text that's often poorly-written, disorganized, astoundingly contradictory, and vastly irrelevant to today's world. Since he gets paid to write, and I do not, I'll just let Mr. Plotz sum up here:

Like most first-time Bible readers, I've been stunned by the amount of slavery in the Good Book. The second half of this chapter is the worst passage yet, a real slavery gobsmack. It doesn't sound so bad at first. In fact, it seems quite tolerant, because it is specifying all the ways in which an indentured Israelite must be well-treated. You can only keep him and his family until the Jubilee year: They can never become property. The Lord reminds His people to treat their Israelite slaves generously: "You shall not rule over him ruthlessly; you shall fear your God." This is all very apples and honey.

But note who the passage is not talking about: All the non-Israelite slaves. They, by contrast, become property "for all time." Leviticus says you must not treat Israelite slaves "ruthlessly." But what does that imply about how to treat non-Israelite slaves? Bring out the whips! Cut the rations! Want to be ruthless? Go ahead, be ruthless!

At the end of Chapter 24—right before this slavery chapter—there's a wonderful passage about equality in law: "You shall have one standard for stranger and citizen alike." Great stuff! Of course the Torah doesn't really mean it. Every so often—as in this Chapter 24 verse—the Bible nods toward a universal brotherhood of men. These are the kumbaya verses that are quoted by modern judges and heralded by modern civil rights activists. But they are aberrations. Most of the time, the Bible conceives of a tribal world, a world of a Chosen Us, and a nearly sub-human Them—an Us who can never be slaves, but a Them that can be exploited ruthlessly, a Them that is property, a Them whose first-born can be smitten.

Is it any real surprise that the MidEast is such a ridiculous mess today?

In which I resent being American

Because this guy represents me to the rest of the world. I don't care about the bit where he was talking to Blair and didn't realize the mic was on: It's not news that they're tight and it would be hypocritical of me to condemn him for using a naughty word in what he thought was a private conversation. Granted, the American president might want to be a bit more careful about checking microphones, but that's not my issue.

My issue is, firstly, this:

PRESIDENT BUSH: Chancellor, thank you very much. Thanks for the invitation. This is a beautiful part of the world, and Laura and I are so honored to come to your constituency and meet some of the friendly people who live here. I remember you coming to the Oval Office, and you said, if you are coming to Germany, this is the part of Germany I want you to see. And now I can see why you suggested it. I'm looking forward to the feast you're going to have tonight. I understand I may have the honor of slicing the pig.
...
And I guess that's about all -- we discussed a lot of things, in other words. And thank you for having me. I'm looking forward to that pig tonight. (Laughter.)
...

Q On both of these. Does it concern you that the Beirut airport has been bombed? And do you see a risk of triggering a wider war?

And on Iran, they've, so far, refused to respond. Is it now past the deadline, or do they still have more time to respond?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I thought you were going to ask me about the pig.

Q I'm curious about that, too. (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT BUSH: The pig? I'll tell you tomorrow after I eat it.

Okay, we get it. You're a good ol' boy from Texas and you're all about the barbecued pig. I have no problem with that: personally I don't share his enthusiasm, but I really don't care what the President eats (disclaimer: I would admittedly him to eat more pretzels.) So, fine, mention it. Then make another light joke of it - that's fairly standard speechwriting, to go back to an opening joke.

But you were just asked about a war! The proper reaction to that question was not to joke about the stupid pig, though in doing so you did give a fairly compelling answer (no, you're not at all concerned about it in the least, you just want to get to your pig.)

Then things got so much better when Bush decided to offer Chancellor Merkel a massage. And by 'offer' I mean 'walk up behind her and start rubbing her shoulders until she (with great restraint, IMO) pushes you away'. I don't care how cozy we're getting with Russia or how close the two are personally. That would be completely unacceptable in a business meeting, barring maybe some very casual offices in places that are very culturally different from Germany and Washington DC. The majority of the world reacts with: "What the hell?", parts of America ignore it, and the rest of America just cringes and tries to disappear in a massive fit of national humiliation.

Some have compared it to the first Bush's little vomiting incident while in Japan. True, both were embarrassing. The difference is that sometimes you just have to vomit, and if your body decides it's happening, there's really nothing you can do about it. I'm not a doctor, but I've never once heard of involuntary massage-giving.

A harsh slap of perspective

I just clicked onto Yahoo News' front page. Here were the top three stories: "Israel softens conditions for cease-fire", "Space shuttle Discovery lands safely", "Americans try to cope with oppressive heat", and "U.S. choppers fly Americans out of Beirut." They're all AP stories.

Forget the second one - I'm glad the shuttle landed safely and all, but let's compare the other items. Right now in a large part of the Northeast, they're on their second day of 90-plus degree weather. People are sweating, spending time in malls and movie theaters, and fighting for parking spaces with shade.

On the other side of the world over two dozen Israelis have been killed and over 200 Lebanese have been killed in the latest chapter of the same stupid fighting that's been going on for three times my lifespan. I remember hearing about brief cease-fires and lulls in the fighting when I was little; about Yitzhak Rabin being killed and Palestinian houses bulldozed. For Joe Average in that region, it doesn't really matter what side of the equation you're on, because either one sucks. You're living in squalor and abject poverty and your hovel may or may not be bombed or bulldozed and your nation doesn't really exist. Or, you live with the constant threat of the bus you're on suddenly exploding, and your head of government being shot down, and growing up you know that you are going to have to go and get personally involved in some aspect of this and quite possibly you're going to get shot at.

Meanwhile, some New Yorkers are sweating as they walk to work and people in Philly are running up ridiculously high electricity bills, blasting the AC.

Why do people say that the world's not fair in response to complaints? Does anyone think it is fair? It's not; it's horribly biased and slanted and injust. John Philadelphia's biggest problem is that it's hot: John Mideast's biggest problem is that once again it's raining missiles and hellfire down in his backyard.

Bush said to Blair at the G8 summit:

"See the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this s--- and it's over," Bush said. He also suggested that Annan call Syrian President Bashar Assad to "make something happen."

Yes. Obviously, that's all they need to do, Mr. President. Call in the Syrians, who will stop Hezbollah, and then the past few eons of instability in the region will fix itself.

Things I'm learning from the London Police

Apparently, murdering a man isn't criminal, but it does violate workplace safety regulations.

Two particular things from the Guardian article that I'm taking issue with. The first is this:

The officers who fired the fatal shots "did so because they thought that Mr de Menezes had been identified to them as a suicide bomber and that if they did not shoot him, he would blow up the train, killing many people," he said.

Any successful prosecution would have to prove that the officers did not "honestly and genuinely" hold those beliefs, Mr O'Doherty said, something that was impossible.

The hell? There were eye witnesses. They shot him eight times, which is not "Uh-oh, dude's not listening to me and I think he's causing a problem and I need to stop him."

I know it's not a reliable source, but there's no reliable source here, so Wikipedia'll do. It says that Menezes was followed by unarmed cops from his apartment, on a bus, then down into the tube station and onto the train. At some point they called for armed backup, I suppose running on the assumption that since he possibly resembled some suspects in a failed bombing attempt, obviously he was about to blow up the train. Note: there isn't really any convincing evidence that's been released to indicate that he was running from the police or anything going into the station.

He was effectively surrounded by plainclothes police. When the armed guys got there, he stood up when confronted. They grabbed him, held him against the seat, and put seven bullets in his head. Allegedly, these shots were fired at intervals, not one after another. This, of course, implies that as they were at extremely close range, after the first shot or two, they would have been able to see that they already shot him in the head and he is no longer a threat.

But, apparently, that's not murder.

The second Guardian quote I take issue with, this one courtesy of the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone:

London Mayor Ken Livingstone added his support to police and criticised the planned prosecution.

"I doubt that al-Qaida will be considering the implications for health and safety legislation when they are planning their terrorist activities," he said. Before Mr de Menezes was shot, he had been watched by police and military surveillance officers leaving his flat in nearby Tulse Hill and followed onto a bus towards the station. Police were on high alert following the July 7 bombings a fortnight earlier, in which 52 people died and hundreds were injured.

Remember, folks. If the police stop thinking before shooting, then the terrorists have won! That's like Bush Lite. Normally, I wouldn't criticize the governing of a foreign city as strongly, but considering that I now live here and take public transportation every day, I dont' think I'm wrong saying this. Sure, al-Qaida's not going to take any notice and laugh as we work ourselves into a state of perpetual and unrelenting terror (note: al-Qaida generally has become an inclusive term for terrorist). And I'm sure that they're not at all amused by the British courts basically giving a coldblooded murder the official stamp of approval.

One final thing about that last quote: Of all the British newspapers (which are all oddly proud of being horridly biased) I usually am most in-tune with the Guardian. But what's up with saying he'd been being watched by the edgy police, and not mentioning that they were watching his entire apartment block, and they just thought that morning that he bore a resemblence to one of the people behind the attempted bombings? It's not as if he'd been a long-term person on their watch list or anything.

Aaarrr, matey!

So, I just got back from Pirates of the Caribbean 2 (judgement: fun, nowhere near as good as the first), and I check my email and some of the blogs I read regularly. And what does BoingBoing point out to my attention? Another wonderful form of piracy, and an extrordinarily healthy attitude towards it!

It seems that John Battelle, who recently has published a book entitled The Search, about Google and search engines and whatnot. I haven't read it, but plan to. Apparently, he got an e-mail from a friend in India, letting him know that he's seeing pirated hardcopies of the book all over the streets of Mumbai. Battelle's reaction?

Second, how cool is it that The Search is a street bestseller in Mumbai?! Do I care about the piracy? No. No, no no. I care that someone in Mumbai cared enough to rip it off, and that someone there might be reading my stuff. That is just cool. Commercial markets always follow the free, or, well, the pirates in this case. Always.

Amen to that. I respect that sense of perspective so very much.

Dear Israel:

Blowing up Lebanon will not make you more popular with anyone, especially not the Lebanese people and government. Please stop.

Love,

A concerned world citizen.

Jesus says: Chill out, man.

Here's an interesting column on AlterNet, in which a reverend asserts that not only is homophobia and gaybashing 'unchristian', but tolerating it is just as bad. Amen, I say.

Then, on the other hand, I have to wonder: Is it really? While yes, Jesus did tell people not to be so judgemental and spread the love and all that, God himself confesses in the Old Testament to being jealous and vengeful, and then in case you don't believe it, he goes and destroys the world and kills people and bargains for the lives of cities and whatnot. So is it possible that, from a Christian perspective, judging people is Godly but un-Jesus-like? (questions like this are why I'm so wary of Christianity).

Oy.

"In Big Shift, US to Follow Geneva Treaty for Detainees"

Sometimes, the headlines just speak for themselves. Also: can someone please explain to me how we're fighting the war on terrorism by destroying peoples lives and laughing in the face of human rights? That's just stupid.

(also: dude with the black convertable across the street? Turn your freaking car alarm off, NOW.)

A room full of pictures and fools

So I keep seeing these ads on the Tube and whatnot for this, and I'm completely failing to comprehend it.

Apparently, you can pay £11.50 to go look at "an exhibit" of pictures of a deceased woman and see some of her dresses.

Now, I'm a fan of art. I enjoyed Santa Fe so it should be clear I have no objection to art simply for the sake of art, and I respect photography quite a bit, as I am crap at it. But: they're saying this is a "major exhibition". A "major exhibition" of photographs which, apparently, are all of the same woman. Some of her dresses are there, too, which I grant may be interesting to someone who's interested in fashion, but that's not me.

A room full of photographs of the same woman? If it's big enough to be a "major" anything, rather than just a few pictures, then it's creepy.

Seeking my fortune...

They said, during the the BUNAC orientation, that one of the few restrictions on our work permits is that we can't freelance. I'm going to ask about this on Monday morning, but I'm assuming that means that I cannot (for example) write an essay about living abroad, I could not legally sell it to a newspaper or magazine here. I'm quite curious as to whether or not it means I could not write something and submit it to an American publication. One wonders.

Happy birthday, America.

Today is the fourth of July and not only am I out of the country, and not only am I in Britain, oppressor of my ancestors, but I plan on doing absolutely nothing to commemorate Independence Day. Last year, I worked on the 4th. Tonight, I could go on a BUNAC-sponsered party cruise down the Thames, but it's ten pounds with a cash bar, and it's raining and I'm afraid it might storm, and being stuck on a boat with drunk people isn't my idea of great fun.

So, no exciting plans for the anniversary of my country of citizenship beating the crap out of my country of current residence. Today has been more of the same: job-hunting, exploring, and discovering that one of the hotels I applied for a job at is way out in the suburbs. It would take me about half an hour to get there and cost something like six pounds round trip, so that's a no.

However, I'm still ridiculously happy here.

Perhaps I'm still in the honeymoon phase, but...

How much do I not miss living at home in New Jersey?

London calling

On the upside, I haven't been shot by the London Police yet, and all major acts of getting lost in London have more or less intentional. On the downside, it's a balmy 86-some degrees here, and not expected to cool off anytime soon. I miss the 60-degree weather of Cork.

I've spent a substantial amount of time over the past few days just riding the Tube and bus system around, getting myself lost and then unlost again, trying to gain familiarity with London. I'm also mentally taking notes as to how their security seems, so that I can compare it to next weekend, which will be one year since the bombings. Will London go crazy and go to "orange status" as would the US? Time will tell.

I actually started noticing this on my way from the airport to the hostel, and they mentioned it explicitly at the program orientation: Don't leave your bags just lying about on a bus or train, and if you see something like that, say something. That's common sense, of course, but apparently do take it very seriously here. Part of it's just the world we all live in today, and part of it is what happened last July. But it when you think about it (and as was mentioned), there's a fairly long history of people blowing London up - first the Germans, then the Germans again, then the IRA, until fairly recently.

This city has the most fascinating history. So many times people have done everything within their power to destroy it and yet here it is today, one of the largest, richest, most important capitals of the world.