Billy-Joe-Bob

10:13 am: I was still drunk this morning
Yesterday was the worst day ever. Well probably not ever, but it was pretty bad. That is, until I got a bottle of wine. Wine makes me a very happy person.
In other news. I have a lot shorter temper. What's up with that. I order my temper to release it's prisoners put it's hands above it's head... oh fuck it. Lets just shoot this cowboy

02:20 pm: Coffee
Mmmm, I'm still breathing in case any of you were intrested in my Upto Date Breathing Schedule. Eating however isn't as successfull. Food doesn't seem that... delicous to me. I still eat, some times, perhaps because I know that's what one does. But I don't find myself hungry too often.
In other news, my work schedule has changed. Right now I'm working from 9 till 6. Nice change of pace. A lot faster work day, so far at least. Might be a little bit tired, but don't tell the coffee that, the coffee is terribly self conscience.

04:10 pm: Today's Hominy:

"[O]ddly enough, the scriptures seem to be telling us, this is part of God’s gift to us. God intentionally chooses to be mysterious — for our sakes. If God were to be fully and completely revealed, if we were to see God beyond all hiddenness and mystery, our freedom would disappear. We would be forced to believe, forced to be obedient. No, this hiddenness is God's blessing.
Certitude is a spiritual danger. If we claim to know God’s ways without question, we limit God to the shape of our own minds. As St. Augustine put it 1700 years ago, 'If you think you understand, it isn't God.'
One of the troubling currents of our time is the tendency of religious people to speak as if we have seen God's face. A lot of what is being said in religious circles can suggest that some people claim to have God figured out, under control, in their pockets." - The Very Rev. Samuel T. Lloyd III

Apperently my lack of believe in organized religions, could be the way. Just be nice damn it!

01:30 pm: I have a new hero. His words cut deep into the troubles of the armed forces, his name is Capt. Ian Fishback.

Dear Senator McCain:

I am a graduate of West Point currently serving as a Captain in the U.S. Army Infantry. I have served two combat tours with the 82nd Airborne Division, one each in Afghanistan and Iraq. While I served in the Global War on Terror, the actions and statements of my leadership led me to believe that United States policy did not require application of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan or Iraq. On 7 May 2004, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's testimony that the United States followed the Geneva Conventions in Iraq and the "spirit" of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan prompted me to begin an approach for clarification. For 17 months, I tried to determine what specific standards governed the treatment of detainees by consulting my chain of command through battalion commander, multiple JAG lawyers, multiple Democrat and Republican Congressmen and their aides, the Ft. Bragg Inspector General's office, multiple government reports, the Secretary of the Army and multiple general officers, a professional interrogator at Guantanamo Bay, the deputy head of the department at West Point responsible for teaching Just War Theory and Law of Land Warfare, and numerous peers who I regard as honorable and intelligent men.

Instead of resolving my concerns, the approach for clarification process leaves me deeply troubled. Despite my efforts, I have been unable to get clear, consistent answers from my leadership about what constitutes lawful and humane treatment of detainees. I am certain that this confusion contributed to a wide range of abuses including death threats, beatings, broken bones, murder, exposure to elements, extreme forced physical exertion, hostage-taking, stripping, sleep deprivation and degrading treatment. I and troops under my command witnessed some of these abuses in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

This is a tragedy. I can remember, as a cadet at West Point, resolving to ensure that my men would never commit a dishonorable act; that I would protect them from that type of burden. It absolutely breaks my heart that I have failed some of them in this regard.

That is in the past and there is nothing we can do about it now. But, we can learn from our mistakes and ensure that this does not happen again. Take a major step in that direction; eliminate the confusion. My approach for clarification provides clear evidence that confusion over standards was a major contributor to the prisoner abuse. We owe our soldiers better than this. Give them a clear standard that is in accordance with the bedrock principles of our nation.

Some do not see the need for this work. Some argue that since our actions are not as horrifying as Al Qaeda's, we should not be concerned. When did Al Qaeda become any type of standard by which we measure the morality of the United States? We are America, and our actions should be held to a higher standard, the ideals expressed in documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Others argue that clear standards will limit the President's ability to wage the War on Terror. Since clear standards only limit interrogation techniques, it is reasonable for me to assume that supporters of this argument desire to use coercion to acquire information from detainees. This is morally inconsistent with the Constitution and justice in war. It is unacceptable.

Both of these arguments stem from the larger question, the most important question that this generation will answer. Do we sacrifice our ideals in order to preserve security? Terrorism inspires fear and suppresses ideals like freedom and individual rights. Overcoming the fear posed by terrorist threats is a tremendous test of our courage. Will we confront danger and adversity in order to preserve our ideals, or will our courage and commitment to individual rights wither at the prospect of sacrifice? My response is simple. If we abandon our ideals in the face of adversity and aggression, then those ideals were never really in our possession. I would rather die fighting than give up even the smallest part of the idea that is "America."

Once again, I strongly urge you to do justice to your men and women in uniform. Give them clear standards of conduct that reflect the ideals they risk their lives for.

With the Utmost Respect,

-- Capt. Ian Fishback

1st Battalion,

504th Parachute Infantry Regiment,

82nd Airborne Division,

Fort Bragg, North Carolina

04:25 pm: That Noodle Bowl, it's deep man!

Ramen 101: An introductory lecture to the ubiquitous udon

T.C. Mitchell
Anchorage Daily News
Sept. 27, 2005 12:00 AM

ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- Welcome, students, to Ramen Noodles 101.

As I stroll across our small universe -- i.e., the university -- I've encountered references to this class as "Ramnoo."

As much as I would like to take offense with that moniker, I'm compelled to agree with you in the sense that ramen noodles, as you know them, exist because of their abbreviation. Short cooking time. Satiation. advertisement

Ramen noodles, however, have more depth than you thought yesterday.

Food historians tend to agree the Japanese are responsible, if you will, for ramen noodles. It's been reported that the Chinese stole the noodles.

The studies continue. How could anyone not continue? How could the exploration not continue? The conflagration burns yet.

Forgive me, I confess to overtitillating you regarding the beginning of noodles.

Eyes forward, please. Perhaps you could eat that bag of chips between classes. Or not here.

Thank you.

Ramen noodles are complex in their simplicity, yet simple in their complexity.

There's no need to write that down.

All that statement does is illustrate the known; i.e., that philosophy assumes logic.

Let me break that concept down further.

Where is the practical, you might ask.

Practical thrives in that maelstrom created by the forces of logic and philosophy. That's why we're here. Isn't it? Or did you think this could be an easy three credits?

If you assume I am correct -- and you must, or kiss your precious three credits goodbye -- logic is the instigator of ramen noodles in your life.

As you will see on the board to your right, the nutritional value is suspect. The carbohydrates sate. At what cost the other values?

Follow me as I suggest a formula for the formula that explains.

And you should make notes.

E expediency,
K cost,
W water,
H heat source,
P a place to eat.

I like to call it Ekwhap. You can devise your own way of remembering.

Now let's explore the philosophy, the thinking, if you will, behind the influence ramen noodles have on us, you and me.

Ramen noodles are vast. Like a vapor. Built by elements we are unable to grasp. We can hold air in our hands, but do we feel it? Do we appreciate it?

I suspect our society -- us, you, me -- accepts ramen noodles in those plastic-wrapped packages as being infinite. I grant you they are ubiquitous, but I can assure they are not infinite.

You may feel like you hold them. My question to you is: Do they hold you?

While you ponder that, please open "101 Things to Do With Ramen Noodles" to any page.

I'd like to share snippets of a conversation with the author, Toni Patrick, who has devoted some of her life to ramen noodles.

"The cookies throw people off."

Did you hear that? That's infinity clashing with the finite. Philosophy feasting on logic.

"I got hooked on them during college. I bought them a case at a time."

That was then for her, us, you, me. That time of exuberance and poverty.

Now ..."when I'm asked to a potluck, they always want me to bring the sweet-and-sour salad. It's a favorite everywhere I go."

Is it possible she's suffering from postpartum collegia?

After all, she now lives in the stoplightless netherworld where northwest Colorado meets southeast Wyoming.

"Up here, it's steak and potatoes."

Is that philosophy or logic or resignation?

"I make what I'm in the mood for. One of my favorites is egg drop soup."

Students, has she embraced the battle of forces, or is she defying it?

"Another favorite of mine is chicken lo mein."

It's clear. Defiance. Patrick has looked philosophy in the eye and scoffed in the face of logic.

She's embraced another culture in a place where cowboys can be lonely and noodles afraid.

Is it possible ramen noodles stabilize her?

Does she, we, you, find solid ground in a bowl of such limpness?

I wonder. Do you? What cost, ramen noodles?

Very well, then, I want 500 words of your thoughts about ramen noodles and the impact, if any, at this time Friday when we discuss the packets and whether they make the noodles taste better or whether they make you feel better.

Or both.

02:05 pm: This is interesting:

Iran's Revolutionary Guards have been following closely the way the United States government has been handling Hurricane Katrina, and drawing strategic conclusions from it.

In remarks that appeared on Ansar-e Hezbollah website on Sunday, a top official of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) said the devastating hurricane had exposed America's vulnerabilities.

"The mismanagement and the mishandling of the acute psychological problems brought about by Hurricane Katrina clearly showed that others can, at any given time, create a devastated war-zone in any part of the U.S.", Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri, the official spokesman of the IRGC, said.

"If the U.S. attacks Iran, each of America's states will face a crisis the size of Katrina", he said, referring to the massive hurricane which hit the southern coast of the United States. "The smallest mistake by America in this regard will result in every single state in that country turning into a disaster zone".

"How could the White House, which is impotent in the face of a storm and a natural disaster, enter a military conflict with the powerful Islamic Republic of Iran, particularly with the precious experience that we gained in the eight-year war with Iraq?" he said.

Jazayeri said the hurricane havoc showed that "contrary to public perception, the strength of America's leadership is like a balloon, which can easily burst".

The Revolutionary Guards spokesman said the U.S. administration's inability to end the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan showed the "weakness of America's defence and state departments, as well as its intelligence and security apparatus".

I could have sworn it was the protesters giving aid and comfort to the terrorists.

02:24 pm: Quite day on LJ today. In other news. I donated $50 bucks to Katrina. The company I work for matched it. So I helped donate $100. Now I understand that it isn't something to party over. But I know that if everyone in the US sent me just $1, I probably wouldn't have to work ever again. If you want some real juicy Katrina info you should check out Andrew Sullivan.

01:30 pm: An interesting point for going to war. I slowly find my self being a bit more pro war. Probably far behind the power curve, as far as prowar goes. But damn the Administration has completly botched the job. Hope someone enjoys this as much as I did.

As a lifelong lefty of the commie- pinko-faggot variety, I was shocked to wake up one day and find myself just slightly to the left of far-far-right raving psycho superstar Ann Coulter. In a column she wrote for National Review Online two days after the September 11 attacks, Coulter suggested that the United States "invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."

Someone at work handed me a copy of Coulter's infamous 9/11 column after listening to me rant about the attacks and what our response should be. Sitting in front of the television, watching the remains of the World Trade Center burn, I had been telling my fellow lefties that we no longer had a choice: We would have to invade the Middle East, depose absolutely everybody--the Taliban in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Bashar al-Assad in Syria, Saudi royals in Saudi Arabia--and start all over again. My position was rooted, I felt, in a lefty analysis of September 11: Our support for tyrants, dictators, and fascist monarchs created the anger and irrationality that led to the attacks. As Bob Kerrey wrote in the Wall Street Journal, "[I]t has been a terrible and tragic mistake for the U.S. to be in favor of freedom every place on earth except in Arab nations."

Unlike Coulter, though, I wasn't in favor of converting "them" to Christianity; replacing one idiotic fairy tale with another doesn't seem like a net gain to me. But I was--and still am--in favor of the West remaking the Middle East--AKA invading their countries and deposing their leaders. Like Ann Coulter, I felt that what we witnessed on September 11 wasn't just about Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, and Afghanistan. Islamo-fascism is a regional problem, like European fascism--and the Middle East would have to be remade just as Europe was remade.

What right does the West have to remake the Middle East? Well, the West made the region the mess it is today. At the end of World War I, the British drew lines in the sand around fictions they called "states," lumping together different--and often warring--ethnic, tribal, and religious groups. We know now that these pseudo-states could only be ruled by brute force and that they would ultimately become breeding grounds for a murderous strain of religious fanaticism. (When we redraw the lines--and we will--hopefully this time we'll have the wisdom to draw them around things that actually exist, like Kurdistan.) After creating these pseudo-states, the West made a bad situation worse by creating and arming many of the tyrants who ruled over them. As Christopher Hitchens wrote in the Nation, the fact that we helped tyrants achieve power in the Middle East should not prevent us from removing them from power; instead our history in the region doubles or triples our responsibility to remove them from power. "The sponsorship of the Taliban," Hitchens wrote, "could be redeemed by the demolition of its regime and the liberation of its victims."

The same argument Hitchens applied to the Taliban in Afghanistan applies to Saddam Hussein in Iraq--and Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and Saudi royals in Saudi Arabia. That Iraq wasn't in bed with al Qaeda--the supposed trump card of the antiwar protesters--is beside the point. We should remove Saddam from power because we owe it to the people of Iraq, and because we have to start remaking the Middle East somewhere. Why not Iraq? Normandy wasn't Berlin, but that's where we started rolling back the Nazis.

But what right do we have to impose our values on them? About as much right as we had to impose "our" values on them Germans. There's also the small matter of our values being superior--can we lefties get behind that concept? While we often fall short in practice, in theory, the equality of the sexes, religious freedom, the separation of church and state, tolerance, and secularism are superior to religious fascism as practiced in Saudi Arabia and secular fascism as practiced in Iraq. And then there's the small matter of the Islamo-fascists' stated desire to impose their values on us. In November of last year, Osama bin Laden sent a letter to the American people. In case you missed it, here's the gist: "The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.... We call you to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling, and trading with interest."

Osama calls on us to replace the U.S. Constitution with Sharia law (stoning adulterers, decapitating homos, etc.), cease separating "religion from policies," and end our "support [for] the liberation of women." If we don't get with the Islamo-fascist program, Osama says we should "expect [him] in New York and Washington."

· · ·

Osama's letter reminded me why I supported the war to remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, and why I support the coming war on Iraq. Or supported the coming war on Iraq. I'm officially against the war now--or against it for now, I should say--which may or may not please the peaceniks who've bothered to read this far.

Did the people in the streets convince me? No. Yes. Sorta. I believe in the power of people taking to the streets. I lived in West Berlin when demonstrations brought down the East German government; I was in Prague when the demonstrations toppled Czechoslovakia's communist rulers. George W. Bush's dismissal of massive demonstrations all over the world--calling them "focus groups"--only served to prove something we already knew: The man is an idiot.

And so are a lot of the protesters. "Violence never solved anything." Really? Violence solved the Holocaust. "Bombs just make more terrorists." Really? We dropped more bombs on Vietnam than we dropped on Europe during World War II. Where are all the Vietnamese terrorists? "Innocent people will die." True enough--but innocent people are dying right now in Iraq. The left's selective empathy is shocking. My lefty pals feel the pain of Iraqi civilians--but only the pain that the U.S. inflicts or might inflict. You don't hear much from the left about the pain that Saddam Hussein inflicts. "War kills the innocent." No, the status quo in the Middle East kills the innocent--and as we've seen in Manhattan and Bali, not just the innocent in the Middle East. War at times is the only hope for an oppressed people--as each Iraqi refugee quickly informs the first Western reporter he can find.

But, whatever, I'm against the war on Iraq now. Why? Because George W. Bush blew it. George W. Bush failed to make the case. George W. Bush wasn't able to convince NATO--NATO!--or the United Nations of the necessity of this necessary war. Now the Bush administration seems set on a course that may destroy NATO and the UN. I don't know about the Bushies, but I think a world without NATO and the UN will be more dangerous in the long run than a world without Saddam Hussein will be in the short run. So I'm against the war. Hey, when's the next peace march?

· · ·

The Middle East is a mess. The West made it a mess. The West is going to have to clean it up. The longer we wait, the greater the odds that New York or London or Paris will disappear under a mushroom cloud. And more attacks will come. The quote at the beginning of this essay ("These are the enemies of God. They will burn in hell") is from a videotape made by a pair of Islamo-fascists casing a public square in advance of a planned terrorist attack. The square was in Strasbourg, a lovely town in France, of all places. The enemies of God were the men, women, and children shopping, eating, and playing in the square. Their crimes? Being Westerners, Christians, French. And to Islamo-fascists, those are crimes.

The Islamo-fascists will succeed where the Bush administration has failed. Colin Powell couldn't bring France, Germany, and Russia to their senses, but the next wave of deadly terrorist attacks no doubt will. So we'll just have to wait until after New York or Paris or Seattle or Strasbourg is wiped off the map to do what must be done. Make no mistake, my fellow lefties: We, the West, will ultimately invade, occupy, and remake the Middle East. Unfortunately for future innocent victims of terrorist attacks, the United States can't do it alone, which means we can't do it now.

01:23 pm: I'm not a big fan of buying things online, except a few nice places I feel at home at, but when I saw the preview for Fragile Machine I had to have it. Something about man and robots idea just hits a nerve in me. And it being compared to an anime opera, just sends shivers down my spine. Kind of like combining the beauty of music and the horror of moving away from the natural way of humanity. I'll be watching it this weekend, probably order some pizzas if any one is interested in coming over to watch!

03:36 pm: Sweet bajesus! It's an LCD Keyboard!

03:23 pm: Got to love those Brits!

"What the fuck do you think you're doing? This is London. We've dealt with your sort before. You don't try and pull this on us.
Do you have any idea how many times our city has been attacked? Whatever you're trying to do, it's not going to work.
All you've done is end some of our lives, and ruin some more. How is that going to help you? You don't get rewarded for this kind of crap.
And if, as your MO indicates, you're an al-Qaeda group, then you're out of your tiny minds.
Because if this is a message to Tony Blair, we've got news for you. We don't much like our government ourselves, or what they do in our name. But, listen very clearly. We'll deal with that ourselves. We're London, and we've got our own way of doing things, and it doesn't involve tossing bombs around where innocent people are going about their lives.
And that's because we're better than you. Everyone is better than you. Our city works. We rather like it. And we're going to go about our lives. We're going to take care of the lives you ruined. And then we're going to work. And we're going down the pub.
So you can pack up your bombs, put them in your arseholes, and get the fuck out of our city." - London News Review.

Got it from Andrew Sullivan

09:43 pm: Here's a map of Havasupai. If you notice there are two dots in the distance, Havasupai village and the camp grounds, enjoy.

06:57 pm: Holy Bajesus Google Earth Rules!!! If you think Google Maps is sweet. Wait till you see that!

08:57 pm:

Here's another little homily I found, it's regarding a question asked to Bill Maher about what he believes will happen after you die. You'll know when you get there, and not before. Our task on earth is to accept that, be good for good's sake and not some later reward, and not make up fairy tales (religion) about stuff to which the honest answer is I DON'T KNOW. ( As opposed to "she came from a rib.")

10:55 am: Holy Tornato Batman!
Yeah, it was sweet. It was oooooooh, so sweet!

11:53 pm: This reminds me of the old school hacky sack days

07:48 pm:

This post will totally not be read by those of you with 2 to 3 second attention spans. Which is a whole other subject matter in it's own. On today's tour de internet-bookmarks, I particularly enjoyed reading from Andrew Sullivan's blog. He is actually an old school Republican which some progressive views on politics. He is a daily read for me, which unfortunately I don't always read the all his posts because I often have a 2 to 3 second attention span. But today I found three particular points that I enjoyed: THEY LIED; ANOTHER CHRISTIANITY; and THE CLOSING OF THE CONSERVATIVE MIND. Starting with Another Christianity. There is a quote that I care enough to mention that brings to light the true nature of being religious: "We have to be persons who are there for giving life to others... We are not interested in punishing others. We are not interested in condemning or criticizing others. We may use harsh words to point out something they are doing wrong, and that may not be easy for them to receive. But it's our disposition toward them that is so crucial. If judgment toward our brothers and sisters is condemnation, hatred, loathing or disgust — that isn't Spirit. That is something else. That is the opposite of what Christ came to do. When he said, "You will free people when you are there for giving life," that is the mightiest work of God. God's mighty act is to love every single human being exactly as they are, in this moment, with the hope and the desire that they move in the direction of the truth. Wanting people to move in the direction of the truth — and taking them for who and where they are — is such a different disposition than condemning and criticizing. It is so different from excluding people. What is so frightening about 'toxic' religion is that it becomes exclusive: 'Get rid of those people who aren't like us.'" The true nature of being religious, IMHO, is being spiritual. It is the root, the core of not your faith, but all faiths. This is what I feel when I read quotes, or homilies as Mr. Sullivan put it. I definitely would say that I am not a religious person, I do not believe, so much that I would say that I am not even agnostic. That is not to say that there isn't something out there, a greater truth. Saying someone is religious is putting a definition on the true and pure way that people should feel and be towards themselves, and eachother. From what I have heard about Jesus he was this way at his core, but that does mean I am going to jump up and be a Christian, as a matter of fact, at his core he wasn't stressing being a Christian. His main message was to be good to eachother and look after those that are less fortunate. Which is the true message of all religions, the true spirit of all religions, the golden rule. Alright, enough of this being philosophical. Is it just me or is Das Kapital a picture of what has really happened in today society?

09:39 pm: Sexy - 512 MB MP3 Player





More Sexy - 1 Gig MP3 Player





Sexiest - 1 Gig MP3 Player/Radio

03:57 pm: Strange Colors from IE

03:33 pm: Last bit of Fast
Never finished the Fast entries. I ended it yesterday with a banana and some yogurt. Quite good. I weighed myself right before and I was at 173, I went about 78 hours with out eating, minus the break I had. Definitely two 36 hour periods if you want to say I broke fast with a break. 6 lbs lost total. I ate again on my way to work about 6 hours later. I had Chinese, egg drop soup and fried rice. Probably not the best for me right after a fast.
I think I very well could have became one of those eat everything in site type people right after the fast. I was full only after a little bit of eating and my mouth still wanted to eat. How strange indeed, but I think I've always been like that. Always the first one done eating, wanting to eat more and more. Luckily I have a some what good metabolism.
I definitely used what I learned while fasting to forget about eating while I was still full. But I lightly snacked through out the day. It was quite an interesting experience. I think I will have to try this again some time.