Woohoo!!!1!! World Champions!!1!1!!

This will make no one happy.

By now, for those who have interest in these type of things, the United States State Department has 1) completed its review of landmine polilcy and 2) no plans to sign the Ottawa/Landmine Ban Treaty. Let's see what kinda trouble we can get into with this.

Following a google of transparent government Obama, 4+ mill results promised, result 1 of the shown 1-10 had this (pertinent excerpts):

Transparency and Open Government
Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies

SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government

My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. ... Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public.

Government should be participatory. Public engagement enhances the Government's effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions. ... Executive departments and agencies should offer Americans increased opportunities to participate in policymaking and to provide their Government with the benefits of their collective expertise and information. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public input on how we can increase and improve opportunities for public participation in Government.

Government should be collaborative. Collaboration actively engages Americans in the work of their Government.

Us folks learned that the O Administration took up the review of the landmine policy because they said they finished it. That's fucking transparency and openness and participatory and collaborative? Holy fuck. Or, the audacity of, ya know, meaning or doing whatcha say. Keep hoping, I guess.

Golly, more of my fussing about O is probably too oldhat for anyone (if anyone) who have been following along here,*A but then the stale taste would be even more evident for anyone (seriously, is anyone?) who have been following the - let's not use "progress" because, well, it ain't - going ons of the O. Yeah, landmine policy may not be on every American's hot topics, but it likely is for quite a few. And for the administration to take it up in secret, why? I mean, I get the secret dealings with the the pharmaceutical (ie, not transparent, open, participatory, or collaborative unless you mean, only with the moneyed interest), like hell yeah, what's not too understand about blatant reneging of a campaign promise cuz, like, lobbyists were shoving a shitload of cashmoney down Obama's throat - luckily, he swallows - but landmines? Is there a pro-landmine lobby? Aside from the military, I mean.

*A So it's no all on O, though as Prez, it really is, for whatever role Hillary played in this, and especially if she played none, criticism shared.

As to whether O telling the International Campaign to Ban Landmines to screw off is a right or wrong thing, jeez. I think this. It is a tough decision for any state to relinquish any of her rights, particularly in regards to the use of force and self defense. Yet obviously there is already a long, long list of treaties and conventions that does exactly that, so nothing too unusual here. When asked why not ban, a Whitehouse spokesperson came up with, "We would not be able to meet our national defense needs, nor our security commitments to our friends and allies if we sign this."*B Hrmph, working through this, the other powerhouse non-signatories would be Russia and China. For what it's worth, Steve Groose supplied, "In fact, the U.S. is the only country that has said it will never join the convention. Even others like Russia and China said it will eventually join." Next, all of the NATO pals have signed (or acceded, if ya wanna be super technical). So ... that leaves S Korea and Israel? Both Koreas have laced the DMZ with landmines, in a peculiar form of detente. As for Israel, genocidaires already, ya gonna knock them about landmines?

*B If there is trouble googling the source, or for anything else here, let me know.

I always think describing who is in and who is out of, say, a treaty is a little too gimmicky and cute, but Iraq and Afghanistan ban landmines, Pakistan no.

If it's unclear, I'll be a little more clear: landmines, landmine use, and the gross suffering that they demand, forgotten but potent in the ground years after whatever petty conflict had been decided, are decisively wrong, evil, stupidly evil and bad. Last year, mostly from old, landmines killed and crippled in the thousands and thousands, most of those thousands civilians. Not to mention the ass massive economic and environmental wreckage. The right and wrong is O's decision for the USA to not be part of the ban.

In Obama's, if I had to be kind in assigning an adjective, ironic Peace Prize speech:

I believe that all nations, strong and weak alike, must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I, like any head of state, reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates – and weakens – those who don’t.

Now, not joining the Landmine Ban treaty is not quite the same thing as throwing a landmine early spring planting party. Critics of O's landmine decision will point to the fact that the US has been in substantial/defacto compliance with the treaty: haven't used 'em since the first Gulf War back in 91, banned the exporting the things since 1992, cut production since 1997, and backed plenty of de-mining work. So that's kinda the light to view the right and wrong. Not extending whatever moral authority/legitimacy the United States may (still) have to a vital humanitarian effort. And trusting the kindheartedness of the Commander in Chief will suffice in upholding standards that govern the use of force. Which ... well, I guess when you factor how the Commander in Chief has (not) upheld requirements of the US Constitution and the ratified Convention Against Torture for, say, privacy, executive misconduct, due process rights, interrogation methods, and etc., yeah, etc.

Not shielded from wrong or concern, the United States has one of the top three stockpiles of landmines, some 10m antipersonnel mines and 7.5m anti-vehicular mines. And have used, recently, cluster bombs, the left behind explosive "duds" that act as de facto mines. So ... whatcha think, right? wrong?

I wish I coulda remember the precise context but over a pretty good dim sum*C in Flushing, Queens, S (for somebody)*D muddled about risk management, how chicks are more and better risk managers, and then religion as a risk management decision, describing a system of thought where it is better to spend an hour praying in case God exist to prevent bad things from or to promote good things to happening. In any case, I gotta believe the one hour praying includes travel time, cuz, like, seriously? Anyway, S asserted a sorta perversion of Pascal's Wager. A term which shoulda'b familiar with those active in forums or comment section of blogs, as Pascal's Wager is easy namedropped by the largest forum/blog habitues, the overspenducated types freshly exposed to philosophy or maybe game theory and stats.

*C The only half decent dim sum houses and, for that matter, Chinese and Korean restaurants in general are found in the boroughs, not Manhattan. If you really want to get down to it.

*D If the jig ain't obvious, when I use a letter to represent a somebody, that letter also is his or her initial. In this case, S is Shel. In other cases, Peter, Christina, Lynn, and so forth. There's a range of reasons, the prime one often being no reason, for doing things this way.

Outside in still balmy for late autumn 39th Avenue, I framed, "Worshipping god as a risk management maneuver don't seem like a feasible idea, or with extremely limited utility, to cover your bases wouldn't ya have to worship MP*E and/ or the moon and/or the fire hydrant? Who's to say any of those ain't God?" Inconsistent revelations is one of the more generic criticism leveled against Pascal's Wager, though I guess I'ma casting it on a much more basic, though I wouldn't say invalid, level. MP is a knockout, ya gotta figure an hour on hands'n knees with her would be ... be... uh, what wuz I talking about again? Essentially, to the bored annoyance of some in the larger party, I persisted, "Where does the idea of religion come from? Or why this alleged god, and not some other, factors in the risk analysis? Ain't everything about (modern) religion from its practice to conceptions of reward and punishment, and so forth, pushed by culture, ie forced by men?"

*E And so forth?

For some reason, S proceeded to posit that the risk management somehow could explain the genesis of religion/religious belief. Like a prehistoric cavedude 'xplaining scary flashing storm clouds or badly timed upset tummies and after some quick and dirty risk analysis by the other primitives, voila, new cult fever. I'm like, you saying that risk analysis explains why modern people practice faith, or was where religion sprang from, or what, both? Serial? Instead I keep a-jabbing with a variation of my questioning, "You mean folks collectively and spontaneously decided that?"

Somehow he granted that religion was/is generated by culture, but still missed the implications of that. By then, I was pretty miffed, and couldn't help but ranted on how in the dawn days of any religious movement, choice wasn't on the table, either believe or die. And dat religion, either as the ruling class or complicit with the ruling class, was a tool to prop the elite and to subdue the vast rest: human sacrifices, witches at the stake, (Tibetan, for example) systemic illiteracy, rigid caste structures, divine emperors, etc. I mean, Christians bided their time as feed for Roman lions or hung broken bodies on crossbeams until they headed the heap, at which point torture and lit bonfires for the unconvinced, or aiding and abetting with the whole indigenous genocide thing. The aforementioned conversos or die.

Nerves restored upon nearing the Main & 39th cross section, white and blue clunky buses jamming up the already too stuffed grid for passenger pick ups & drop offs or shift changes for routes, depending on one's outlook, ending or restarting. I woulda've just added that if the modern age permitted choice in faith, and if risk analysis was done as S described, some weird variation of Pascal's Wager decision matrix, heck, that would be really, really poor risk analysis. Seems to me, it'd'a be more a referendum for, depending on one's taste for cynicism, which male culture was mo betta' at accurately articulating God and His/Her expectations or, well, which male culture is just mo betta'. Only the former slightly plays into the reward/punishment of the matrix. But we had to touch up the old ATM for hard currency cizzash. After that, a coffee break some place.

A-and 'spite how this sounds, to myself even as I review, wasn't meaning to be a blase rascal about religion, god, spirituality, and the rest of that stuff. Them're an entirely different matter. And should disclaim, punching holes in Pascal's argument ain't to dismiss his contributions in mathematics/probability/game theory/so forth. Erhmm, justa long way of saying I didn't know what point my friend was trying to make. The how of his thought processes not the substance, cuz wasn't like it was serious talk 'spite my taking it seriously. Passed the time for the Sunday afternoon alright though.

This chat transpired not too long ago (side conversations pulled):

S: yoo
need help
me: wazzup?
S: i cant think of a present for (a friend)
i looked into a jacket
but they ran out of small
...
im screwed
does she look like a medium to you?
or a small
...
it would be good traveling jacket for her
she is doing a (long) vacation
...
man
if she is a med then im saved, but there is only one left
me: go med
for a shell, usually she's gonna have a fleece or something heavy underneath anyway
and it ain't like she's gonna lose weight

I WAS KIDDING!*F

*F Can't stress enough, totally, just, kidding. I've zero opinion about anyone's appearance. Cuz I don't. And glass house situation, ya know. And that friend, she's a mega cutie pie.

Back ta trashing Godbama. I kidded the other day that I'm gonna quit being an optimist, cuz some train tickets I sought got sold out. The 39 Nays on December 2 from the NYS Senate are an entirely different matter. I can't quite say what I got here is expressly a pro gay site, or weblog, or however the kids define this www stuff, but the right for gays to marry is clearly something I support. Like, it's fucking equality. Now that my state has declared itself a safe haven for bigots, cowards, fascist pigs, & psychotic shitards, I feel lost. Basically it's as if everything positive, great, and hopeful about my state and my being in my state has become misery. And I'm hoping that time or the necessary fight to convince the 39 Nays of their immoral vote will change my perspective, but right now, I just want to get the hell out of this place, bat-style. Go/find/be someplace where all 'em French slangs like liberte, egalite, amitie, raison, charite, justice, vertu, fraternite, etc., where they, you know, actually mean something other than something-to-be-trampled. Not much of a fighter's attitude, is it?

38 of the 39 Nays are the dirtbags State Senators who rejected gay marriage. The remainder nay is for Obama. His position on gay rights gives cover for every coward and scum in politics to continue to deny equality and human rights to human beings. Obama's stance excuses spineless Democrats, and bolsters Republican sleaze. It churns the hate and intolerance machine. This is his great and grand fucking leadership, audacious hope and change? I ain't the type to mitigates the personal responsibility of the 38 NY State Senators for their dirty, horrific vote, but Obama, as the Prez, as the supposed transformative figurehead, as the self-labeled agent of change, why, there is no way to say he don't bear an unique and weighty onus for perpetrating a regime of hideous tyranny against human beings. Resistance to tyranny is obedience to god.*G So the fight goes, incredibly disappointed but unbowed.

*G See *B?

Roman Catholic, union gal, 23rd Senate District NY State Senator Diane J Savino's 7+ minute of realness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCFFxidhcy0. Play it the whole way through, definitely worth the watch. I could leave it on infinite loop. Was this kinda like following Obama in the early days, well, I mean, besides the fact that Sen. Savino actually/really does and stands for things.

I also gots to read up more on Gov. Paterson, Savino sez her Senate career was due to his tapping her shoulder, and the upswing of decent Democratic Senators may be credited to Paterson's groundwork while in the Senate. Plenty of mediots are saying he's in trouble, questions of competency, snub by Obama, & behind the scene forces squeezing him out of a 2010 run, but I can't say so far he's been awful, or, as politics go, inexcusably awful. Read up beyond re-reading Wiki that is.

MW mentioned midway thru our memorable movie conversation that she saw and liked Agnes Varda's The Beaches of Agnes. Cool, huh? Cuz I adore Varda, and Beaches was awesome. Pedro Almodovar's name came up, cuz his new flick was a standout draw this past New York Film Festival.*H Did I say "memorable?" Yikes, and I don't remember if MW caught Broken Embrace, or wanted to catch the screening but didn't. Well, memorable in not strictly factual detail way? 'Bout Almodovar, I sez, "He's super and all, but, you know, when is he gonna not make just another Almodovar flick?" As in he's peaked, and the recent batch of hyper-saturated melodramas are somewhat trapped and stuck, or let's put it this way, safe. And MW was totally getting what I meant. Well, of course, dudes are easily fooled into thinking any gal he's a talking to "gets" him, especially with alcohol involved. But still, I'ma saying, we more or less agreed. Though going through the motions on such an elevated plane - as my cousin recently caught Broken Embrace and couldn't more highly recommend it - might still be darn good, still worth forking over whatever price the movie theaters charge these days in admission. And who knows? certain moviegoers may never have been hip to Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown, Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down!, and so on.*I Plus Pe Cruz. She is like, like how the fat kids would approve, yums!

*H Bummers, Picasso-esque beauty Rossy de Palma doesn't appear in the trailer to "Broken Embrace." Cat Power in the soundtrack!

*I In roughly a fortnight, give or take some days, it'll be out with the old, in with the new decade. Once upon a time, skimming critics' year/decade/whatever time frame best of movies list was kinda fun. Less so nowadays as there're few/no critics I enjoy reading. But okay, I checked out Time Out's lists (both NY and London). A-and not awful, some good surprises, feels more open and international even if the stink of tokenism still stinks. And since I like to concentrate on the negatives anyway, who were the snubs and what does it mean? Among those with more than one super flick this decade not mentioned at all: Jia Zhangke, Manoel de Oliveira, Johnnie To, Stephen Chow, Jin Jo Hur, Chang Dong Lee, Takashi Miike, & Shunji Iwai. Even from directors who I only saw a single sampling of, still plenty of choices not from the USA or Europe. Maybe too much, as the kids say, wishcasting. Yet.

Even if intermittent avowals that I hate misogyny don't exactly recast these web-sheets to a feminist site, on the subject of bras I support: burn em and ban em. The health reasons are mostly for exceptional cases. And there are more than enough comfort and health justifications to go without them. However, I wanna spotlight a couple more. The first is the important stewardship of our planet. No bras means lots and lots less, depending on country of origin, Kleenex, Scottis, Vinda, Zewa, Tempo, Marcals and Puffs squandered as stuffing material, and the matching conservation of precious limited resources to produce and transport said tissue. Deforestation wrecks far-reaching environmental, social, and biological abuse, you know, endangered fauna and flora, icky pollution, global warming, exploitation of indigenous folks and so forth. No bra, healthier earth.

Second is cleavage fraud. I don't know about you, but it's a bit of a letdown when after the wine, and chow, the phatic babbling, electric light dimmed, wicked light aflicker, Curtis and Marvin grooving the playlist, a-and then, "Alright, now we're cooking," second base petting. Followed by the "Uh, where's the rest of that?" shock -> sorely disappointed look, both of which quickly gotsta be kept hidden as best as possible, cuz don't wanna place at risk advancement to the next base. Am I right? I mean, ain't like I'm mislead all the time, there are times when I'm like "whoa," or "sweet," or "yeah, baby." And the tricky part is I've gotten (see what I'm doing here?) my hands on the genuine enough to nurse expectations, and to get badly nipped for those expectations. Well then, just have to resort to bag of visualization tricks to keep the hard on the hard-on. Sport and nursing bras are a different practical consideration, but otherwise, no need to heave illusions to intrigue. Cup size, I hope I'm not suggesting anything but, hardly matters. Anyhoo, ditch the brassiere, ladies, and no sweatin things out in 8th circle Malebolge. Paired naturally, for dudes, tinfoil wrapped cucumbers bait and switch is a no no too.

Wrote that shit.*J

*J That's borrowed from one of the Matt & Kim youtubes I had prior linked. And I intended to phrase it the same way Matt sez it, but only so much can be done with letters on a screen. So fine, I'm getting the footnotes reader friendlier, but you got to click thru the links yourself.