 |
Endorsements |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
"You really are clueless, an embarrassment to the name. Hope you're adopted." -- June Dever
"this guy is right about conserving a clue. he hasn't one and that leaves more for the rest of us." -- Jim Lovell
"Your e-mail addy... should be 'dever@getalife.net.'" -- Sponge
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Topic: Dever's DiatribeThe new items published under this topic are as follows.
| David Caruso Wants to Kick Your Ass |
| Posted by: dever on Tuesday, October 03, 2006 - 11:55 PM |
In the late 70s and early 80s, attempting to feed off of the "macho" image Miller Brewing Company was working to instill in to its "Lite" brand, the folks over at Schlitz decided the key to their prosperity was to out-Miller their cross-town rivals. After compiling a crew of even meatier meatheads than the crew of washed-out, has-been athletes Miller had found, they produced their own series of ads in which their tough guy would be asked to trade his beer for another. At this point he would snarl at the camera and exclaim, "What? You want to take away my gusto?!" The end result was a series of commericals which were menacing, aggressive, and literally scared off potential Schlitz drinkers. Marketing insiders aptly took to calling the campaign, "Drink Schlitz or I'll kill you!"
Apparently, those same writers have moved on from the advertising firm they were at and are today writing for CSI: Miami. And it is getting old...
The show is centered around giving Caruso ample opportunities to preen and show off that he's the baddest dude in Miami. Apply this formula to any given week's episode:
Person Dies. Caruso and crew arrive on scene, make witty banter and wrap up with Caruso making some inane comment that, I can only assume, is supposed to convey a sense of urgency - punctuated by Caruso putting on his sunglasses. ** Title Sequence ** Random beautiful people collecting evidence ** Caruso standing in a hallway, leg jutting in some sort of male-model-wannabe pose, staring out a window doing absolutely nothing for 3 seconds. Person approaches Caruso in conversation, during which he refuses to look the person in the eye and scowls. Concludes with Caruso finally lifting his head and intimidating said person. ** Random beautiful people in lab coats playing with cool geeky toys - edited as annoyingly as possible by some wanna-be Tarantino with multiple frames of action moving around, goofy image effects, and a hip-yet-relatively-unknown artist for a background score like Baxter, or Massive Attack. ** Caruso heads out and confronts head bad-guy number one, softly threating him while looking at the deck, punctuated when he looks in to his adversary's eyes and lays out the overt threat. This is another favorite spot for Caruso to put on his sunglasses again. ** Random beautiful people in lab coats.... well, you get the picture already.
I don't want to be too hard on the writers, I understand that Caruso isn't the easiest guy in Hollywood to write for. While some actors have a range of emotions and temperments they can credibly portray, others have fewer dimentions. Caruso has an on and off switch - he's either talking or he's silent. His sunglasses are on or they are off. He's looking at the floor or at the camera.
The end result is something that feels so fake and is so over-the-top is trying to make Caruso tough that it ends up as a giant joke. It's "Drink Schlitz or David Caruso will kill you!"
As an aside, I've taken to watching the show with a bottle of Scotch and making my own drinking game out of it. Not only is the show much more enjoyable, I'm usually feeling pretty good by the end of it. Anyone who wants the rules, feel free to ask.
|
|
|
| 116 Comments
|
| And the Ohio GOP Continues to Implode |
| Posted by: dever on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 05:10 AM |
Bob Bennett was, at one point, considered a political genius for shifting control of Ohio politics to the GOP. The problem is, he didn't win those victories by recruiting and supporting republicans - the party backed a bunch of Democrats-in-drag, err "moderates" (He out-democrated the Democrats) and Ohio has been paying the price. There are precious few fiscal conservatives and civil libertarians leading the show in Columbus, replaced instead by "Republicans" that would be "Democrats" in any other state. Not to be outdone, the Ohio Democratic Party responded by recruiting and running fringe nut-jobs like Lee Fisher - until now. Here's the perfect example:
After 10 years of bitter fighting by the populace and plenty of broken promises, Ohio was finally one of the last of the states to pass concealed carry reform. Ohio's CCW experiment is a couple years old now, and during that time some major flaws with the system have been exposed. The most obvious flaw is the restrictions on carrying a firearm in a motor vehicle - in short the weapon must be in "plain sight" (with no definition of what degree of visibility constitutes said "plain sight") or it must be in a locked compartment. Complying with this prevision is, at best a nuisance, at worst a safety issue - causing needless handling and re-holstering of a firearm. While I fully expect my fellow concealed handgun license holders to be a cut above with regards to training and weapon handling, the reality is that most people neglect or have insufficient experience with holster work. It not covered in great detail in most firearm safety courses and most ranges prohibit it. (Which is just another reason you should go spend a weekend at Tactical Defense Institute!)
After listening to feedback from license holders and holding public hearings, the Ohio House passed HB347 with broad, bipartisan support - removing the nonsensical "plain sight" language from Ohio's concealed carry provisions. As expected, Gov. Bob Taft threatened to veto the bill and it has since died in the Ohio Senate, which still seems hesitant to put itself in a position where it would have to consider overriding the veto of our notorious "Republican" governor - lame duck Democrat-in-Drag, or not.
This has not gone unnoticed by the Democrats in the southern part of the state, nor by gubernatorial candidate Ted Strickland who released the following statement:
"Ohio's GOP leadership has demonstrated that they are unwilling to act on important legislation to strengthen protections for Ohio's gun owners.
"The improvements needed to Ohio's current concealed carry law outlined in HB 347 have bipartisan support from both Democratic and Republican legislators in the Ohio House of Representatives. But the Republican-controlled senate has stalled this very important bill indefinitely.
"As governor, I would support passage of this bill in its entirety and would sign HB 347 into law the moment it hit my desk. I urge the legislature to stop the delay and pass this legislation as soon as possible."
Twelve years of ineffective leadership has finally put the Ohio GOP in a position where they've allowed their Democrat opponents to take support of gun rights issues away from them. The irony is so thick one almost requires a chainsaw to cut through it.
The real trouble for the Ohio GOP is that their opponents have their number this time - instead of Tim Hagan as a candidate, they've recruited a moderate who enjoys strong bipartisan support in his congressional district.
Footnote:
Perhaps my problem is that I'm not truly a conservative, but a "small l" libertarian who had viewed the GOP as pretty much running in the same direction I thought we should travel. With the anti-civil liberty and fiscal irresponsibility shift in the Ohio GOP (and the RNC, nationally), it has become increasingly difficult to reconcile my differences with the party. The only positive I see for the Ohio GOP this year is that Ken Blackwell is very much an outsider and despised by Bob Bennett's party machine. Had Jim Petro won the primary, it would have represented another four years of Voinovich/Taft non-leadership. Unfortunately, Blackwell is an uber-social conservative - so as much as I'd like to see a Blackwell victory as a giant middle finger to Bennett, I have yet to find an argument that would truly persuade me to vote for him.
|
|
|
| 101 Comments
|
| Same Shit Different Name |
| Posted by: dever on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 10:02 PM |
FAIR and the Center for Independent Public Broadcasting are pushing for to take oversight of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting away from congress and turn it over to an "independent" (read: uber-liberal) oversight committee that would be more immune to political pressures.
In other words - us idiotic common folk would still have the privilege of funding CPB but with even less input that we have today. (As if congressional oversight really gives you or I that much input in to the activities of CPB.) I'm sure this sounds like a great idea to progressives who can't figure out why the majority of Americans don't agree with their position and continue to send Republicans to Disneyland on the Potomac. Like most of the ideas of our "progressive" brothers and sisters, this is truly terrible idea.
Let's get this out of the way right up front: Anyone who has read this site in the past knows that I'm no fan of public broadcasting in general and more specifically public television. With the advent of cable channels covering just about every interest under the sun, there's really nothing PBS is doing that isn't already being done better by the private sector. Between A&E, Bravo, the History Channel, the Learning Channel, Discovery, and the various children and family programming channels that are all parts of most basic cable channels, what does PBS really bring to the table that isn't already being handled by the public marketplace? Frontline? Simon and Garfunkle singing in Central Park 20 years ago? Just zero the funding already and move on - there's something of a budget deficit if you haven't noticed (even though tax revenues are at an all time high).
On a more personal level, I've grown weary of watching the staff of PBS stations hijack the programming for their fund-raising jihad - holding Big Bird and the Cookie Monster hostage to guilt people like my grandparents in to sending them $200 for a WVIZ-TV 25 ("You make the difference!") coffee mug and a Yanni CD. It seems like you can't turn on a PBS station anymore without someone interrupting the program with a styrofoam cup in their hand asking, "Spare some change?" It's embarrassing.
But let's get back to the real issue here:
Any entity that receives federal funding should be subject to federal oversight. The government isn't creating any wealth of its own, it's simply taking money from you and I then distributing it as it sees fit. In essence, we are all shareholders of CPB therefore we all have a certain degree of input in deciding how the corporation is run. Our input comes through the decisions of those we elect to represent us in Congress. Removing control of CPB from congress eliminates the voice of the people paying for the product and that's not acceptable.
Even shifting the funding to a "usage fee" levied on commercial broadcasters is still a tax in disguise. It's a governmental mandate to take money from one organization and redistribute it to another. Ultimately these fees are considered in to advertising costs, which then trickle back in to higher prices for consumer products that you and I pay. It's still a tax, albeit one that goes to great lengths to disguise the fact.
Or put another way, the output of the wastewater treatment plant certainly smells nicer than the input - but it's still being driven by the same old shit.
|
|
|
| 91 Comments
|
| Never Eat at a Place Called "Mom's" |
| Posted by: dever on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 04:50 PM |
I stopped in at a local Deli today to enjoy a Ruben and a couple minutes of quiet time before heading out and running my day-off-errands. I check out my waitress - 25, brown hair, brown eyes, very cute - the kind of she's-fun-but-you-can-still-take-this-girl-home-to-mom kind of look. A lot of my "downtown" friends ask why I've moved out to the southwest suburbs and live out in "the boonies." Honestly? These hot Italian girls like I just described are EVERYWHERE. Ok, so that wasn't the initial draw but it's definitely a perk and I'll admit a weakness for attractive brunettes. The lesson is: if you want to see pretty girls every day, move to a community where the majority of the businesses are involved with concrete.
But none of that had anything to do with what I wanted to share.
As I'm sitting my meal a young couple walks in. You know the type - they're both pretty homely and neither knows how to dress and somehow they're perfect for each other in their own unkempt kind-of-way. It's the "lid for every pot" concept. (Now, I realize I'm not going to be gracing the cover of GQ magazine in my lifetime, but I refuse to accept that I've fallen that far down the scary looking people totem-poll. Although, judging by recent pictures, I could be deluding myself.) As he sits down with his back to me, I already feel like I know too much about this guy.
Uncle Dever's Fashion Tip For Men #1: Don't wear tighty-whities.
Uncle Dever's Fashion Tip For Men #2: If you must wear them, for the love of God, don't let the waistband ride above the waist of your jeans so everyone know you're violating my first tip. Pull up your pants, tuck in your shirt, freeball... whatever it takes.
Anyways, tightly-whitey boy and acne-girl are apparently moving in together - ah, young love - but first, there's the ever important conversation about everything you own that she doesn't like.
"We are not getting rid of the china cabinet. I paid like $1000 for that. I'd rather we just throw out your entertainment center first..."
"Where do you think you're going to put your stupid workbench?"
"Will there be room for both refrigerators? Because I'm definitely keeping my fridge."
I'm starting to feel bad for this guy. The entertainment center AND the workbench? Why doesn't she just take that butter knife off the table and start sawing away his testicles right now? He tries to reason with her some more, but it isn't going anywhere. This conversation has turned in to a disaster. I think of Stephen Whitty reviewing Gigli, "Such an utter wreck... you expect to see it lying on its side somewhere in rural Pennsylvania, with a small gang of engineers circling and a wisp of smoke rising from the caboose."
I almost want to jump in and assist the defense, but really - it's not my problem. Just another reminder of why I like living alone.
|
|
|
| 103 Comments
|
| Filibuster It! |
| Posted by: dever on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 03:00 AM |
Apparently, back in the care-free days that made up my time at Rocky River High School, I missed a very, very important lecture in government class. You see, I've always thought that the Senate operated on a majority system when it comes time to do things like, say, appoint a federal judge. I missed the day where the teacher explained to us that you actually need a super-majority of more than 60 senators to do such a thing, and if you fall between that number and 50, all the opposition has to do is whisper the word "filibuster" and you've lost.
But that doesn't seem to be the only lecture I missed. I've also been equally misguided into believing that a filibuster was a measure of last resort and considerable hardship to the senators, requiring senators of a particular party to continue a debate over an extended period of days and nights, not yielding the floor back to the chair who would, in turn, call a quorum and vote. Apparently, as far as the Republican leadership is concerned, a filibuster should only be conducted during normal debate times in the Senate, with everyone returning home at night to a hot meal, a romp with a hooker, and some fine scotch and a cigar. (Oh wait, is that Ted Kennedy or Babe Ruth? It's easy to get the two confused.) Otherwise, why aren't they forcing the Democrats to put up already?
Letting the Democrats filibuster a judicial nomination, instead of just pulling it at the slightest threat, would be the best thing the GOP could do. But I mean a good old fashioned, stand on the floor of the senate and read "War and Peace" throughout the middle of the night, we're open twenty four hours, we never close, Jerry Lewis Telethon style action. Let the spectacle go on for a couple of days. If there are Democrats willing to stand on the floor of the senate talking, reading, preaching, or lecturing 24/7 for an extended of period, let's see it in action. All the GOP needs to do is stand outside, point a finger, and exclaim, "Come see the Democratic party in action, stonewalling and gridlocking congress from getting anything accomplished."
The Democrats can't filibuster everything. Eventually they will tire of the effort, probably long before the American public does. Not only does this prevent the Senate from doing other things, like passing bad laws for a short period of time, it makes the Democrats look like the bunch of obstructionist jackasses they are. To me, that's called a win-win situation. It would be the first major PR coup for the GOP for the 2004 Senate elections.
|
|
|
| 102 Comments
|
| Perhaps That Word Does Not Mean What You Think It Does |
| Posted by: dever on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 03:00 AM |
Christiane Amanpour has started beating the censorship drum, saying coverage of the Bush Administration's policies has been skewed because CNN "was intimidated" by the Bush Administration and Fox News.
First of all, this is incredibly amusing. I can't help but picture Walter Isaacson being lured into a black Lincoln Town Car by a couple of Italians outside of CNN's studios. "The President is going to be very unhappy if you don't roll over on Iraq. Very unhappy. Capiche?" Rupert Murdoch sending his best dressed Guido in a white suit to stand around outside CNN headquarters in Atlanta and intimidate workers. "Hey! Nice camera. I said, 'nice camera.' Must be nice to have a camera. A fella should make sure nothing happens to it."
CNN may, indeed, have allowed itself to be intimidated by Fox News, but only because it's slipping in the ratings wars. Fox News has been successful because it has captured the attention of many Americans who are tired of the bias in other news networks. That CNN has decided to move to the right to regain audience is a source of consternation to the far left and a vivid demonstration that their views are out of touch with mainstream America. That's hardly censorship by any intellectually honest definition of the term, but instead a marketing decision by her employer. If Amanpour is so out of touch with CNN's audience and wants to continue as a spokesperson for terrorist regimes and the Palestinian Authority, perhaps it's time for her to move on to NPR or Al-Jazeera.
Amanpour's comments are typical of the reaction many have had to the success programs with a conservative bias have enjoyed on cable television and talk-radio. Liberal journalists crying "censorship" because they're losing the monopoly on the transmission of ideas and opinions rings as hollow as Jesse Jackson screaming about the racism boogeyman every time he desires something. Most people see right through it, and it devalues whatever argument they were trying to present. At best, it looks like nothing more than a cheap attempt to influence the opinions of those too illiterate to use a dictionary. At worst, how delusional the left has become.
|
|
|
| 102 Comments
|
| Cry Me a Fucking River Already |
| Posted by: dever on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - 03:00 AM |
Fred Reed started the ball rolling, writing that guys in America shouldn't marry women here in the states and proceeded to explain why he felt that women in this country have a chip on their shoulder. Now, I'm not going to sit here and defend Reed, because in many respects he's just plain wrong. Not entirely wrong. Not 100% out in left-field wrong. Not O.J. Simpson wrong. Just wrong enough that the few valid points he might have had were buried beneath all the other bullshit he dumped on top.
His article, and the contemplation thereof, led Venomous Kate down some path of introspection, admiring the meaning of peaceful bowel movements, finally ending at a giant lake of self-pity:
I was taking a shit for chrissakes. You know: door closed, pajama bottoms around ankles, bare ass, bad smells. A moment that most of us consider private. A moment in which most of us are gladly alone and which some of us enjoy immensely for the relief it affords but which, because one of my loved ones needed something from me, I had to rush through.
It's things like that which make me angry.
First off, I suddenly feel like I know more about Kate than I ever wanted to. I can't help but flashback to Fight Club, "Strangers with this kind of honesty make me go a big rubbery one." I'm not sure why this couldn't have been handled with a terse, "Don't bother mommy while she's in the bathroom." Sure, we've all had that rather uncomfortable experience where someone wanted to talk to us while we were taking a dump, but a quick, "Look, I'm trying to take a shit here!" usually ends the discussion - I go back to my book or magazine, and all is well with the world once again.
It's the culmination of moments like that - not merely moments spent trying to shit in a bathroom but all sorts of moments in which I'm racing through one thing to deal with another - that make me angry. It's the fact that even my most basic of human needs must be juggled with the needs of others which makes me feel chronically pissed off.
Have you considered Zoloft? Why be that frowning, bouncing oval when you can go through the day as a smiling, bouncing, not-quite circle? The rest of us put up with the same nonsense day after day, and most of us without the luxury of sitting on the beach while bitching about it.
I'm angry because it shouldn't be like this. I'm angry because when women say that we can't handle it all, we can't do it all, we can't be whores in the bedroom, tycoons in the boardroom, maids in the living room, cooks in the kitchen, washwomen in the laundry room, psychologists in the family room, teachers of homework in the kid's bedrooms and still remember where a man put his goddamned keys - when we talk about being tired or about being pushed beyond our limits, the response is always the same: "You wanted this, remember?"
I am angry because I know - and mark my words, you'll see this in the comments from some asshole who didn't take the time to read this far - that when I say that I'm tired of it, that I've had enough, that I can't handle it anymore, I am labeled a failure and branded as selfish for merely wanting a break.
Meanwhile - meanwhile - I am angry that I am expected to stroke the egos of any man who "pitches in" and performs duties around the house that his father would never have done. Don't believe me? Then watch the comments for the first guy who points out that he bathes the kids or feeds them dinner, and read his comment carefully because there you'll see a man who is wanting credit for doing those things.
I'll defer to Jeff Goldstein writing to Asparagirl 20 June 2002: "Getting too much to bear, is it dear? No problems. Just pen some wistful, world-weary words (a few fat paragraphs ought to convince people of your sincerity), strain a few analogies, and then its off to Starbucks to share a Caramel Macchiato and a rasberry scone with your pathos. (Or, if you're feeling particularly melodramatic, you can maybe hide out in a neighbor's attic or something and write journal entries until the world is dusted in irradiated ash -- or until the Stoli vanilla runs out, whichever comes first).
"Jesus. Just fall on your pen already. Get it over with."
Do you really think it's any easier for men? We're supposed to be corporate tycoons while at work, protectors when things go "bump" in the night, sensitive and caring when dealing with our families, and completely understanding every time you get your panties in a bunch for no apparent reason. We're supposed to just accept that you don't want to have sex anymore, but we're not supposed to go outside the house to find it and take care of our natural biological functions. Then to top it all off, we're supposed to be the Amazing Kreskin, reading your mind to find out what stick is up your ass on any given day so we know what verbal minefield to avoid, knowing if we ask what is wrong, inevitably the answer is "nothing." All that and you get the house, the kids, and half our paycheck when you decide that well, maybe it really was "something."
If you want to stop hearing about how angry we women are, then help stop the things that make us so mad. If you want to help - if you really mean it when you say that you do - then help us help ourselves.
Excuse me? Women are angry because they got everything they asked for. I'm sorry if it wasn't the bed of roses you thought it would be, but women made that bed, not men. It was women in this country who wanted - demanded even - to have it both ways. They wanted a career and they wanted kids and a family. Women wanted a bunch of wussified, pussy-whipped guys who were afraid to open a door for a woman without offending her sensibilities or sense of independence, or to tell a joke, or - god forbid - have an opinion of their own. Well, congratulations, we gave you everything you asked for. We stopped opening doors. We stopped being polite. We stopped carrying groceries, giving up seats on the train, and let you prove that you could do it all for yourself. We learned to just keep our head down and mouths closed with the exception of the occasional affirmative style grunt, all the while biting our tongues and hoping you'd just get it out of your system. We surpressed our natural instinct to be the aggressor, the challenger, and the breadwinner. In the war of the sexes women were the hands down victor, and now that society has changed to accommodate that, women are deciding they don't like it. Well, excuse me, but tough shit.
Be careful what you wish for... you might actually get it.
|
|
|
| 101 Comments
|
| All War is Immoral - And Other Bunk |
| Posted by: dever on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 03:00 AM |
While reading Dawn Olsen's take on this whole you-still-need-to-justify-the-war-in-Iraq nonsense, I read the following gem in her comments section:
I can understand people's disaffection with the scandal, but to those of us who believe war is immoral always, and to those who found this particular invasion of a sovereign nation and the subsequent murders of innocents unjustified, Bush's lie/error/crack-fueled delusion does matter. As do the economy, the attacks on civil liberties, the inequality of GLBT Americans, etc., etc. All of it makes the case that Bush needs to be impeached.
So, with all due respect, no, we can't just move on.
Posted by Natalie at July 18, 2003 01:02 AM
I responded there, but it turned into a full scale Dever's Diatribe, so I've decided to run the response here also:
"...but to those of us who believe war is immoral always..."
You know, Natalie might have had a point in there somewhere, but I have to admit that I tuned out as soon as I read the above. Not only is the idea that war is always immoral incredibly naive, it's just flat out wrong.
As much as I'd like to live in some sort of utopian bubble where everyone lives in a state of peace and harmony, unfortunately there's a real world out there - and it's not always pretty. In fact, it's usually rather ugly. As long as there are individuals and leaders who are willing to take up arms against their fellow man to enslave or murder them, good men will be forced to stoop down to those same lows to combat them. Sure, it would have been much more pleasant had Adolf Hitler decided one day to step outside, join hands with the rest of Europe, and break out into an impromptu acapella of Kumbaya. Unfortunately, Hitler was too busy chewing up Jews into Purina Pig Chow to find the time.
There were plenty of moral justifications for removing Saddam Hussein from power, it's just rather disturbing that we didn't use any of them in our arguments to go in. In the end, it was a long overdue removal from power - complete with a plethora of reports of torture, genocide, and a pile of ignored United Nations Security Council Resolutions thick enough to keep the document shredders at Arthur Anderson working overtime. You'll be hard pressed to find any reasonable, rational person running out to buy Johnson and Johnson's No More Tears shampoo as an aid to console themselves now that he's gone.
But let's get back to the idea of moral and just warfare.
For starters, the notion that war is immoral is a relatively new concept. Up until the end of World War I, war was considered an acceptable means to settle differences. Countries have routinely entered into mutually agreed upon rules of combat (i.e. "just war tradition") in an attempt to keep warfare as "civilized" as possible, to minimize the amount of time before the countries can enter into diplomatic and economic partnerships after the dispute is resolved. One needs only look at the Geneva conventions to see the practice continues to this day.
Jus Ad Bellem / Jus in Bello
For all war to be immoral, then one must believe that no society or person is ever wrong or unjust as a basic tenet. Example: Country A invades Country B and decides to massacre the entire population. To believe taking up arms against Country A as a method to stop such a practice is immoral, one lends tacit approval to the action. Ignoring the idea that you end up saying war is immoral while standing in a moral vacuum (which is a lot like saying drilling in ANWR is bad because it'll kill the Unicorns), this tacit approval stands in direct contradiction of the judeo-christian values which influence western civilization. Catholic theology, in particular, has been a dominating force in determining the criteria for when warfare is a moral imperative through two concepts known as jus ad bellem and jus in bello.
Jus ad bellem refers to the five basic criteria used to judge is a war is, indeed, just. I'll touch on each of them briefly:
1) Just Cause. Why are you going to war? Are you defending human rights, protecting human life, or embarking on genocide? Obviously, the last of these would fail the test of Just Cause by the value structure of the western world.
2) Right Intentions. This is open to a lot of debate, but the basic point here is that the war should be undertaken in the pursuit of justice as opposed to national self-interest. This leads to a host of philosophical debate as the two are often intertwined.
3) Proper Authority. Are you a sovereign nation following the pre-defined rules your charter, constitution, or law defines for the waging of war?
4) Reasonable Chance of Success. This one is sort of a no-brainer. If you don't have a reasonable chance of success, it is not worth the sacrifice of human life.
5) Instrument of Last Resort. Other means to achieve the Just Cause are not effective or have failed.
Jus in bello refers to how a just or moral war should be waged. It has two basic concepts:
1) Discrimination. This can be defined as the concept that hostilities should be directed towards military and political targets, minimizing the risk to non-combatants.
2) Proportionality. Some theorists consider this to be both a part of jus ad bellem and jus in bello. There are two basic concepts here - the ends should be in proportion to the offense committed, and needless destruction should be avoided.
In this framework, western civilization does, indeed, consider war to be a just and moral instrument. While you're certainly entitled to believe that war is always immoral, you'll have to forgive the vast majority of society from disagreeing with, and dismissing you as, some sort of simpleton.
|
|
|
| 100 Comments
|
| Long Nights |
| Posted by: dever on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 03:00 AM |
I have strange nights anymore. Two nights ago, in my dreams, I was standing with a group of people gawking as flames shot from the roof of some city building when I turned and my father was standing next to me. He had this big shit-eating grin on his face, as happy as can be and not a care in the world. Naturally, I was a bit surprised to see him since, well, he's dead.
Dad: "How are you?"
Doug: "Hey, you're not supposed to be here."
Dad (with a big smile and laugh): "I can go if you'd like."
Doug: "No, no, stay."
We talked about absolutely nothing for a few moments until people started looking at me funny for talking to someone who wasn't there, and with that, the magic was lost and he was gone. I wanted to ask why, but didn't. In hindsight, it was like most conversations we had - talk around the big issues and act like they're not there. When I'd call his office, we wouldn't talk about the important stuff, we'd talk about the Indians and Browns, where the new speed traps were, what a hair-brained scheme we thought the Mayor's Office had for downtown renovation, or how the idiots at ODOT are making our morning commute hell. There was a 500 pound gorilla in the middle of the room and we'd look at it and ignore it and act like everything was great. Just don't wake that sonuvabitch up, right? Six weeks later and not only is there a new gorilla in the middle of the room, you're not around to have a decent, irreverant conversation with, and that's what I miss the most.
Instead, I have to wait for a quick snippet in a dream and then spent the next two days awake and haunted. These are my nights. I wept longer and harder recently than I ever recall. Laying in bed, I hope I'm not going to start asking the questions I'll never find answers to. Why? What drives someone to do that? What was the final catalyst? I'm not going to lose my mind next, am I? And there you are, just in time for when I finally fall asleep, to show me how happy you are and act like nothing's wrong. Well, fuck you, mister.
You son of a bitch, I hope you saw that line of people lined up outside the funeral home for you. They were lined up out the door and you hadn't given most of them the time of day in over two years but they still showed up because they still cared. We all tried, but you just couldn't let go of your quest to save that disgusting, self-centered, worthless drunk that you married who didn't want your help, but needed your money. You knew it deep down too, but you were too stubborn to admit it, instead resenting all of us for pointing it out. You pushed everyone who ever cared about you away because we weren't willing to sit around and watch you destroy your life. Do you remember our conversation in 2001? "I don't know what's wrong here Dad. I'm the one who's 25, you're supposed to be telling ME how to not fuck up MY life."
How about this past fall, when your daughter told you, "It's her or me, Dad," and you chose to leave your daughter in tears in the lobby of the justice center. I didn't dare give you that sort of ultimatum, I knew how you'd choose. It was easier for me to just sit back and say, "Well, he's an adult, he's going to make his own decisions." It wasn't that your kids didn't love you anymore, it was that we couldn't stand to watch anymore - even Jerry Springer is only one for one hour per day. We shouldn't have had to witness that. In the end, there's a lot of things we shouldn't have had to witness and scenes I chose to witness and bear as my own cross to spare your other children.
So here we are, six weeks and it feels like yesterday. There's still a house that I don't want to go back to that I need to search for personal effects. As an added bonus, the drunk's lawyer has asked that she can accompany me so that we can make sure there aren't any disputes. Needless to say, I've been avoiding that phone call - dealing with the fallout from your marital problems isn't real high on my list of things to do.
Six weeks. I still haven't found any solid answers. I don't know why you decided what you did that day, nor do I know what was going through your mind. What could have been so awful that you wanted to leave so soon? Look at your beautiful daughter, happily married, probably going to be having grandchildren soon. Didn't you want to be there for them? Didn't you want to see that? We'll never know, because in your self-centered rage through the house that afternoon, you didn't even bother to leave a note.
So here's my self-centered rant, and at least I'll have the common courtesy to write it down for you. You shouldn't have gone, it's not right and it wasn't for you to decide when. You've ruined your father's retirement and sister's birthday, and left behind three very hurt and confused children, one of whom is only 15 years old and who looked up to you and wanted to be just like his Dad. You know, for weeks all I heard was about how much you cared about your children, but you sure had a funny way of showing it! Instead, in a rage and a stupor, you did something stupid and look at the consequences. I just want to shake you and scream at you, "Look what you did! Look!"
In the end, it's all a mess. I'm angry, hurt, and confused - but don't worry, I'll get over it. It took a little longer for things to start to sink in than I thought, hope you understand. Stop by to chat sometime, it's going to be a long baseball season in Cleveland.
|
|
|
| 105 Comments
|
| Planning a Night With Bono |
| Posted by: dever on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 03:00 AM |
A pre-planning session for the "Tinseltown to Gotham" party at Cipriani's...
Bono: So, anyways, I was thinking that now that I've been nominated for a Nobel peace prize I need an entourage at the party. It's just seems fitting. I mean, I'm not responsible for the deaths of countless Jews like Yasser Arafat, nor have I slaughtered entire villages as Le Duc Tho has, yet I was still seen fit to be nominated for such a prize. Perhaps they find me as ineffectual as Jimmy Carter and Kofi Annan. Anyways, here's what I was thinking... we can bring in a whole parade of stars like Carly Simon, Wynonna Judd, Patti Labelle, Mary J. Blige, Sheryl Crow and Gwen Stefani to all say great things about me and then, and this is the best part, we'll bring in 20 starving, orphan Ugandi kids.
Jimmy Fallon: What kind of second-rate party does Nicole Miller throw? I mean, since when do we need to bring our own waitstaff?
Bono: They're not going to be there to serve us. They're there to highlight the plight of third-world children because of oppression by the capitalist military-industrial complex in wealthy nations. Do you realize that a third of the Earth's population is incarcerated by poverty because their governments are expected to pay back the loans they took from wealthy countries and international banks?
Faith Evans: Oh, don't get him started, we'll be here all day. I don't want to talk about poor people on the other side of the world. Poverty is just the pits.
Bill Clinton: Bono, I'm all for getting Sheryl Crow and Gwen Stefani there. I'd like to "feel their pain" if you know what I mean, heh heh. But if 20 little black kids would do it for you, then go for it. It's never stopped Michael Jackson.
Faith Evans: I don't know, having little orphan children standing around looking like they're starving is just the pits. It's so Sally Struthers.
Jimmy Fallon: Hey, all I know is those kids better be quick with the gin and tonics for Jimmy, or I'll show them what it's like to be oppressed...
|
|
|
| 99 Comments
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
Printer Friendly Page | Register | Log in 
