Monthly Archives: November 2001

Looking goood, Mr. Rosco!

Some bad news that today may well be good news… Right now I'm watching the footage of the jet's engine on TV and the side of the engine is blown out. To me this suggests that this crash could be as simple as a bird got sucked into the engine, one of the turbofans blew out, and it took out the plane's hydraulics. Without those, the plane is uncontrollable and would have to crash — it couldn't even glide. It's very unlikely, but it could happen.

It's all theory at this point, but so far it's looking like this was totally unrelated to terrorism… Let's hope the evidence continues to support that. I know the FBI is saying that there was an explosion on board, and that the Pentagon says they scrambled jets at the plane because they knew there was a problem, but all of these things would have been the case if it was Bin Pelican behind this.

And now some good news. I just got back from approving the Rosco Kids Club shirts… It took a bit of back and forth on the screens and colors, but it looks GREAT now:


This sucks, another plane crashes in NY.
Let's hope this is a coincidence.

First of all, the puppy is snoring away obliviously on the couch next to me. She's all put back together and there's just a half inch gash and a stitch betraying her adventure.

I just got a copy of my edited scarification article back. I was worried that they would edit technical errors into it, but it looks good, and they even left in the phrase “a single mountable icon of physical misery begetting beauty”… I'll post when it's actually published.

Today my plan is to make some changes to the experience engine, both to make it more functional, and to discourage people who are basically just fake voting (yes, I know who you are). These will include an area for commentary that gets passed to the writer (so if you reject an experience, you can tell them what to do to fix it), as well as a timer (so if you try to vote a couple seconds after reading — ahem — skimming the experience, it won't let you).

Until then:

Quote and good night

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
Hermann Goering, Nazi leader,
at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II

Bring back the draft?

First, image update later today.

Second, the other side of the story. Whatever one believes and decides, it is essential to know your enemy.

Third, since it's looking like the draft may well be instituted and America's boys might start getting murdered again… anyone who needs to escape that can move north.

No state has an inherent right to survive through conscript troops and in the long run no state ever has. Roman matrons used to say to their sons: "Come back with your shield or on it." Later on, this custom declined. So did Rome.
- Robert Heinlein

So free…

A few people messaged me to say “who cares how they prosecute criminites, I'm not a criminal”, and “oh, well they'll only use this against terrorists.”

Those are not valid arguments. The reason that we have client-lawyer confidentiality is to encourage frank communication between lawyers and clients, thereby serving the public good. By removing this right, clients will not be able to discuss their case fully with their lawyers, stopping them from getting fair trials.

As far as the “I'm not a criminal” argument, think about it for a minute. It may come as a shock to you, but sometimes the wrong people get arrested. If lawyers know their conversations are monitored, it means that they can not effectively discuss your case or defense with you, because literally everything they say to you can be used against you. Even if it's as simple as the fact that when the prosecution has intimate knowledge of your case, it makes it MUCH easier to undermine and put an innocent person in prison.

As far as the “I'm no terrorist” argument, that's not valid either. First of all, legislating a situation where certain kinds of criminals get less right to a fair trial is ludicrous. Second, there is nothing written that this will only be used sometimes… Which means that it will be used always.

I've left out a million arguments why this is a bad idea, including the obvious fact that this is a stepping stone.

In addition, the arguments above could be used in Afghanistan. “I'm not an infidel, why does it matter to me that the Taliban will execute me if I use the Internet?”

Links worth checking: