And the worst of it is that if attacking Iran has something to do with the midterm elections, you can be absolutely sure that it won't simply be a one-time deal, in and out, but something we'll become purposefully entangled in.
No one will vote Rep. in November because we hit an Iranian nuclear reactor in July, end of story, right?
What's on CNN? I don't have cable in my room.
Crap. Is it too cynical of me to say this is obviously just a fabulous idea because it pretty much suits everyone's interests? We get to start another war, Hamas gets to promote terrorism and anti-US/anti-Israeli sentiment, Iran gets to stand up against the US and solidify their regional status, and the mess that is Iraq gets put on the shelf along with Afghanistan.
I was talking about the website. Maybe this has been going on from earlier, but I just found out about Israel bombing Beirut.
Yes, that was reported earlier today.
I'm rather baffled that anyone might think that reports (which were around yesterday and this morning, by the way, as regards the take-hostages-to-Iran thing) that Hezbollah is intimately connected to Iran (and Syria) is news.
It's not in "we must bomb Iran because they may have nuclear weapons in a few years" territory. Not even remotely close.
And this from Silber is awfully dumb: "If the Bush administration wanted to, they could bring all the pressure at their disposal to bear on the various parties involved -- which pressure is fairly monumental, it should be noted -- and arrange for an immediate cease fire, to be quickly followed by intensive negotiations. "
Yeah, because America could put so much more pressure on Hamas and Hezbollah than Israel is already doing, and because they and Syria and Iran are so inclined to do what America wants.
This isn't about George Bush. Not everything is. People who write as if it is are in the class of "having no idea what they're talking about."
Goddamnit. Where the fuck have I been. Stupid CNN, everytime I check it has BREAKING NEWS and flashing red things to make me think they are Just Reporting About It Right Now.
Ok, fuck, this is really, really bad.
So just to review the bidding.
GHWB:
* Oversaw the US during the peaceful transition of huge swaths of humanity from Communism to something like democracy.
*Paved the way for the 90s economic boom times by raising taxes to lower the deficit.
* Arguably decreased the volatility of the Middle East by boxing up Saddam Hussein with the help of a passel of Middle East allies and more or less the rest of the world.
GWB:
*Will have overseen the US as Russia transitions away from democracy (or something like it).
*Will have massively increased the running deficit.
*Has absolutely increased the volatility of the Middle East exponentially, and may have started WWIII.
There's just no way that GHWB isn't pro-choice.
I don't think the argument is that it's a Bush conspiracy. I think the argument is "oh fuck, this might be the excuse he needs to do that thing he's been looking for an excuse to do."
I am highly unconvinced by the link in the update.
I agree that the Bush administration hasn't much pressure to wield (except with Israel), Gary, but the idea that the administration wouldn't be plenty happy to use this to accelerate the conflict with Iran that they so clearly crave ignores pretty much that cabal's entire history.
Do they really crave conflict with Iran, though? And if so, are they out of their fucking minds?
Agh. I am so upset. I'm going to bed.
Fuck.
Gah. Just as I'm reading all this stuff about craziness, I hear the Emergency Broadcast System go off upstairs on my roommate's TV (again with the EBS!). Went to see what was up and she's asleep on the couch and the broadcast was ending. Guess I'll just refresh washingtonpost.com a few times to see if I'm screwed.
Do they really crave conflict with Iran, though?
Iran has always been the primary goal. I don't think it's a complete coincidence that we have inserted troops into countries on both their eastern and western borders.
Yeah, because America could put so much more pressure on Hamas and Hezbollah than Israel is already doing, and because they and Syria and Iran are so inclined to do what America wants.
Bullshit, Gary. At a minimum, the US can (maybe could have, now) put a lot of pressure on Israel. As they are the dominant military power in the region, that might matter a lot. The US can agree to bilateral talks with the Iranians that include the topic of security agreements in return for all the pressure Iran can put on Hezbollah right now. And Syria--we can give them back Lebanon, if we had to. None of this may make strategic sense, all of it might be actively bad for US interests, but yeah, we're the biggest guy in the room by a longshot, and, unless you have nukes, we can make you do whatever the fuck we want if we want it badly enough.
No one's saying this is a Bush conspiracy--people are saying that it may suit some part of the Bush Administration to see this go badly for now. (Even that, I don't really buy. I think we're just on the tiger. But it's hardly crazy to note that there are people who believe a war in Syria and a war in Iran would be good things, and that they're the same people who thought we should go into Iraq, and that they got that.)
Right now, on CNN, all the talk is that Iran is behind this in order to deflect attention from their nuclear program. And God, but I would love to punch Joe Klein in the nose.
"None of this may make strategic sense, all of it might be actively bad for US interests, but yeah, we're the biggest guy in the room by a longshot, and, unless you have nukes, we can make you do whatever the fuck we want if we want it badly enough."
And that's working out so well for us in Iraq.
Relying on rational analysis from the neocons is a fool's game, Gary.
I'd tend to recommend Haaretz as a better source of news on this than CNN, incidentally.
"Relying on rational analysis from the neocons is a fool's game, Gary."
I didn't say a thing about "the neocons." I just noted that working under the theory that the U.S. could wave a magic wand and get Hezbollah and Hamas to do what it wanted is beyond silly.
What's going on between Israel and Hamas and Hezbollah isn't particularly about the U.S. Americans love to think that everything is always about the U.S., but that's hardly always the case. That there are various U.S. political interests that have interests in this is true, but not central to events at present.
Neither did "neocons" command Hamas or Hezbollah to do what they did, which, incidentally, was almost certainly put into motion months ago. Digging a tunnel about a kilometer long isn't something done on the spur of the moment.
However, if anyone would like to feel more alarmed.
At the risk of making myself the cui bono person in the room, what do the neo-cons/Bushies/Gop-ers get out of this?
That Patriot credit card seems to be approaching its limit...
24: 22 was in response to how well it's worked out for us in Iraq. The lesson is obvious to you and me, but I don't rely on it acting as a deterrent to them attacking Iran. I think we talked right past one another.
However, if anyone would like to feel more alarmed
...there's always the Jerusalem Post.
At the risk of making myself the cui bono person in the room, what do the neo-cons/Bushies/Gop-ers get out of this?
War with Iran, I guess. It's insane, but they do seem to want it.
And again, I know the current hostilities aren't about the US. Doesn't mean we aren't figuring out how to use them to further our similarly pre-existing goals. That's what worries me.
War with Iran, I guess
Sadly, I can envision Secretary Rumsfeld formulating his objectives for '06 in precisely these terms.
What's going on between Israel and Hamas and Hezbollah isn't particularly about the U.S. Americans love to think that everything is always about the U.S., but that's hardly always the case.
That's hardly the point, Gary. The US has interest in the ME not going nuts right now, and the US has sticks and carrots that several of the important parties are likely to respond to. I'm not sure how much more of a structure there needs to be in place before we can say that the US can have some effect on what happens next. If Syria and Iran really don't have any influence over Hezbollah and Hamas, then there may not be much we can do; but if that's true, the Israelis may have more freedom of action in addressing this aggressively.
As for the neocons, I think the idea is that you really don't get many chances in life to remake the life according to your own personal theory of Risk(TM). It's now or never for that particular foreign policy strain. That the neocons (or the Cheneyites--who knows who really wants war with Iran?) might make use of useful events strikes me as not at all crazy.
The election is too far away to start a war with Iran now.
You want the "rally around the president" bump in the polls to occur right before the election. If a war with Iran starts now, that bump will fade by November.
So in other words, you have a few months to get your affairs in order.
"I think we talked right past one another."
Yeah, my point was to SCMT's declaration of "Bullshit" and that the U.S. "we can make you do whatever the fuck we want if we want it badly enough," which as regards Hamas and Hezbollah is just entirely silly. The U.S. has approximately as much influence and control over them as it has over the Badr Brigades, except, in fact, vastly less.
And Israel didn't wake up and spontaneously decide to start fighting Hezbollah and Hamas. Vice versa. Meanwhile "Thunder 1" and Katyusha rockets are raining down deep into Israel, including Haifa, from the North while Qassam missiles are coming from Gaza. Over 120 wounded. There are two sides fighting here, and Israel didn't start it. Not that the Blame Game will be particularly useful.
"If Syria and Iran really don't have any influence over Hezbollah and Hamas,"
No, they clearly do, although as regards Hamas, the problem is that a) Hamas is a fairly fragmented organization, and b) Hamas isn't in control in Gaza. Neither is Fatah or the PA. No one is. It's gangland with an overlay of some officials one can chat with, who have no control and little power. There's no there there. This is a key part of the problem.
U.S. influence over Iran is rather negligible, to note the obvious. Over Syria, perhaps somewhat less negligible, but they're also not in the habit of jumping at U.S. demands. Look how far Security Resolution 1559 has gotten.
"...the Cheneyites--who knows who really wants war with Iran?) might make use of useful events strikes me as not at all crazy."
I wouldn't argue otherwise, although precisely who in the U.S. government today desires what as regards Iran for now, and what the precise power dynamics are today (other than that I'm sure most would not like to see Iran get nuclear weapons), is unclear to me.
Watching Pee-Wee construct a salad on Adult Swim, I'm inclined to think that we're all lacking the proper ingredients for an accurate analysis and prognosis.
Hence: sleep for me. Buenas.
I'm no fan of Bush, but I'm not particularly worried about him orchestrating all this to get his war on. I'm more worried about events drawing our Iraq garrison in. There isn't enough tin in the world to make me imagine what Iran gets out of provoking us, but I can envision Operation Iraqi Freedom having to get out of Dodge via Syria in the near term.
I wonder how Jordan feels about all of this?
U.S. influence over Iran is rather negligible, to note the obvious.
This is unclear to me. As I understand it, the Iranians made overtures to us about broad negotiations that would possibly include the cessation of their nuclear weapons program in return for security guarantees. I'm not sure why security guarantees have become less valuable to them.
. Over Syria, perhaps somewhat less negligible, but they're also not in the habit of jumping at U.S. demands.
Again, it depends on what we have to trade. I suspect that in return for our turning to anything they want to do in Lebanon, we might get some action out of them.
Again, I don't know if it serves our interests, and that, ultimately, is all the US should care about. As for the morality of the Israeli action, I don't know, but I'm happy to believe that they are in the absolute right here. But, from the US perspective, who cares? We want what we want, and need what we need, and that's controlling. There are five moving parts that have been identified, and it looks like we have some leverage with three of them. Maybe that's not enough, but that's not on its face clear. That's what I took Silber to mean.
"I wonder how Jordan feels about all of this."
Screwed, as usual. That is, that's what Abdullah, not precisely a democrat, probably feels.
Most Jordanians and Palestinians are likely feeling the same as most Palestinians and many Lebanese: setting off fireworks, giving out sweets in the street, and cheering mightily at the blows struck against the evil Zionists. Especially since it's likely not going to be much skin off the nose of anyone in Jordan.
"I suspect that in return for our turning to anything they want to do in Lebanon, we might get some action out of them."
Perhaps, but that would be an awfully evil thing to do to the Lebanese, don't you think? And pretty counter-productive in the longer term? In other words, a pretty bad idea?
"...I'm happy to believe that they are in the absolute right here."
I don't believe they're (Israel) in the absolute right here. I'd never go remotely so far. As I wrote here:
And I wouldn't argue that current Israeli responses are necessarily going to get desired results, or are the best response, and I certainly wouldn't argue that they are morally immaculate.
The problem is that if one asks "what's the better strategy?" and "what's the set of actions Israel should take to get back its soldiers and stop these attacks?," no one seems to have a real answer.
"Diplomacy" and "working for a more peaceful solution" and other generalized phrases aren't an answer, either.
A horrible bottom line seems to be that pretty much every scenario connected to reality sucks.
And it's not particularly admirable or necessarily useful or justifiable if Israel takes, at least for a while, the attitude that if everything is going to suck, it might as well suck for you as well as for us, but it's not entirely surprising, either. No more, at least, perhaps, than Palestinians and Lebanese and other Arabs setting off fireworks and giving out sweets and dancing in the streets in joy and support of the current events and actions.
People are stupid, particularly when they get mad. And they have no useful outlet. No matter what their ethnicity or nationality or religion is.
Perhaps, but that would be an awfully evil thing to do to the Lebanese, don't you think? And pretty counter-productive in the longer term? In other words, a pretty bad idea?
To quote someone else: A horrible bottom line seems to be that pretty much every scenario connected to reality sucks. Or, The problem is that if one asks "what's the better strategy?" it's not clear to me what it is.
Maybe everyone steps back of their own volition fairly soon. Maybe there really is no risk of a war that engulfs the entire region. Or maybe doing something evil leads to the least bad outcome for the US. But I think a broad regional war...I can't even really imagine how terrible it would be.
I'm not making any predictions for now, that's for sure. I can imagine several plausible scenarios, but it's probably more likely that it will go down some lane that's less likely, if you know what I mean.
Meanwhile, I'd rather be neither alarmist nor complacent.
A shame for anyone who invested in the Lebanese tourism industry this summer. Not going to help Israel's economy, either. Not that these are at the top of the list of problems; I'm just noting.
A slightly positive thought is that at least in Lebanon, lots of people have something to lose, and there are lines of authority; Hezbollah has lines of command, and if the leaders do decide to do something, it's apt to get done. So if they can be pressured to stop fighting, it should happen. And they do have a number of pressure points, from the Lebanese government to Iran and Syria to their own infrastructure. (Though, as I noted, Iran and Syria aren't terribly easily pressured by us or Israel, particularly Iran.)
But Hamas in Gaza: not so much of any of the above, as I previously noted. So I think Gaza may be, while smaller, and less well armed, more problematic and complicated to "solve."
But really, since we dunno where this will go, it's impossible to say.
This post, which Jonathan Edelstein linked to, is of interest, incidentally.
And with simply splendid timing, Khaled Meshal announces he's in charge of Palestinians.
Glad that's settled.
I've been expecting the war-in-Iran scenario for about three months. One reason I quit political blogging is that when it happens, I expect half the Democrats to defer to the President in time of crisis while the other half twirl around in circles yelping. If we were going to have an opposition party, the opposition party would have realized that Bush had ruined everything else and his only ace in the hole would be a crisis, and they would have prepositioned themselves against the war with Iran.
Interpretation of the most recent events isn't key to my guesses about the future, but the spin coming out of the Bush administration and the strategy being taken by Israel, and the Bush non-sesponse to what's happening all fit my worst-case scenario. War-with-Iran trial balloons have been going up for God knows how long, and the media still is mostly playing for Bush.
One thing Rove knows is that events ("facts on the ground") trump sentiments and opinions. That's a lot of what was mean when the Republicans were sneering at "reality-based" politics. The Democrats will be all prepared at some point for the reality they see, but between then and the election the Commander in Chief will abolish that reality and replace it with a strikingly different reality. And the press will cooperate, and a lot of democratic votes will vanish in a few days.
This could be stopped only with widespread vocal overt opposition with a lot of mainstream participation (including moderate Republicans), and I just don't see that happening. The Commander in Chief gets the benefit of the doubt in the best of times, the 30% of the population supporting Bush is rabid and active, the media are gutless and brainless and many are Republican plants, and the Democrats are intimidated and inflitrated with adamant hawks.
"pre-positioned". "non-response". "Democratic".
Please, please let this be a paranoid fantasy.
Of course the US could put more pressure on everyone. Especially Israel. We could withhold aid. We could publicly condemn them. We could stop selling them arms. We could offically break diplomatic ties with them. As for the other countries, we could threaten sanctions. We could offer more aid packages in exchange for negotiation with Israel.
Those are just off the top of my head.
If preventing this large war were our priority, we could do it.
One way we don't do it is by having the president of the United States say things like, "Israel has the right to defend herself," which he did yesterday.
Of course they want war. They want a more conventional, state-based war. They think they can win it because that's what our military was created for. And the Iran hawks believe fervently (like they did with Iraq) that war with Iran is inevitable, so let's do it now before they become even more dangerous. They believe they're saving America. There's no debating with this mindset. Their logic is a closed circle. And they're the ones in charge.
We could offer more aid packages in exchange for negotiation with Israel.
It really does seem that the potential for large-scale bribery of other countries to behave in ways we like is vastly, vastly underutilized. People talk about Islamic terrorism being fostered by Saudi-funded madrassas across the Middle East -- I don't understand why there aren't free, secular, US-funded schools all over the place (staffed by a combination of locals and Peace Corps or similar).
I'm not sure that the hawks really fear Iran much or believe that they can't br stopped without war. Many of them just want war, period, and many of them want the US to take control of the Midlde East and put the fear of God into everyone everywhere.
Aggressive wars always have to be presented as defensive -- what's-his-name in 1939 was worried about the Polish threat against whichever country it was that he was leading at that time.
I don't understand why there aren't free, secular, US-funded schools all over the place (staffed by a combination of locals and Peace Corps or similar)
Yes, absolutely. The real battlefield is in the hearts and minds. Those who spread radical Islam know this. Meanwhile, we're aggressively fighting our great-grandfathers' war. We'll never win anything that way.
and many of them want the US to take control of the Midlde East
This is the only sane justification of the Iraq war that I can think of, on the principle that you make hay while the sun shines.
the potential for large-scale bribery of other countries
For the $8billion/month we're spending to stand around while Iraq dissolves into chaos, we could be doing a hell of a lot of bribing.
Well that's the thing, the comparative cheapness. (and, you know, the less death and destruction bit.)
The whole hearts and minds thing is insufficiently macho and death-centred though.
Remember, these guys are in government to i) get rich and ii) feel like they are real men.
No one's mentioned the most important thing, namely that the Giorgio De Chirico painting in the sidebar of the blog linked in the update is fucking awesome. It's hanging in MOMA and I make a point of seeing it every time I go. It's also the sometimes desktop of my computer.
Also on the update, and without adducing any evidence, I don't trust Greg Palast.
It seems like all the good wars happen when I don't have cable.
Guys, let's focus on the good news, though, which is that I just ordered this computer!
59: I love that painting, and all the GdChirico paintings from that period. That green sky, that eerie perspective, they are so beautiful.
I must know the name, or pseudo-name, of the person who agrees with me! Neither the writing style nor the expressed opinion has revealed it.
That was me. I keep forgetting that my work computer refuses to remember info.
As I just wrote on ObWi: This is interesting:
Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, issued a statement placing blame on Hezbollah and its Iranian supporters.
"A difference should be drawn between legitimate resistance and rash adventures carried out by elements inside the state and those behind them without consultation with the legitimate authority in their state and without consultation or coordination with Arab countries," the official Saudi Press Agency reported the statement as saying. "These elements alone bear the full responsibility of these irresponsible acts and should alone shoulder the burden of ending the crisis they have created."Huh. Not that it's surprising to see Saudi Arabia, Sunni arch enemy of Shi'ite Iran, smacking Iran and its creature, but, still, strange bedfellows.
This from June 28th is also very interesting foreshadowing.
Joe, your link in 61 doesn't work. But if it's a MacBook...you're going to love the two-finger scrolling. Just to pick one feature.
Two-finger scrolling is just about the coolest thing evar.
I want to do two-finger scrolling!!!
What is it?
"I want to do two-finger scrolling!!!
What is it?"
First, wrap a tiny scroll around two fingers.
Hrmmm. I'd say I'd have to agree with Gary on one point; this is only incidental to American issues. Or more precisely, where the US is involved in this particular crap, it's as the dog being wagged by the tail (Israel).
As for the particular plans anyone has, well there are three parallel tracks. One track is about winning elections in the US. That controls the timing of war and buildup to same. Note that that is the MOST important track to the people that count.
Track two is (or was) related to duplicating the events of 1941 - Britain 'retook' the Middle East (Syria, Iraq, Iran) from the Germans. Or more accurately prevented the Germans from taking Israel. The interests of Israel take precedence with that crowd, but the 'oil for us' crowd goes along with them. Concept: conquer the Middle East, kill the evil people, safety from terrorism, safety for Israel and cheap oil forever.
Track three is George Bush, his legacy and his Daddy. The idea was to top his Dad (and Scowcroft) by winning Iraq and making something useful of it. This did not work. NOW he has to salvage his um, legacy, and a third (successful) war just might do the trick.
Timing: War cannot occur before the election - if it did things would go wrong and that might cost them the election. War can't occur between Christmas and New Years because you just don't do that. So any attack is going to occur between January and March. Prolly when there is a new Congress and they can push the thing through. That leaves plenty of time between now and then to get a UN resolution, further intensify the situation and lay the ground beforehand for war.
Since we've already been through this scenario twice (2004 was slightly different), and they were successful, they'll run the same play - start really banging the drums for war at the end of August, win the election and then keep up the steady drumbeat to push Congress and the UN to go along climaxing in Feb. or March. (They wanted to attack in Feb 2002, remember, but they couldn't get that UN thing quite right until March.)
The bullshit has not yet begun to come down the pike.
max
['Woo!']
When you put two fingers on the trackpad instead of one, you can scroll the active document in any direction instead of moving the cursor. It does't sound like much, but after you use it for ten minutes, using any trackpad that doesn't support it feels like playing piano while wearing mittens.
using any trackpad that doesn't support it feels like playing piano while wearing mittens.
Which feels excellent, by the way.
I think apostropher and I may have swapped the positions we held a few months ago. Well, more accurately, I've started to believe that if we wind up in a war with Iran it will be because Israel "made" us*. I think BushCo's original intention with beating the war drums was simple posturing, a way to get us riled up about a war they didn't intend to fight so the Democratic base would be too busy fretting to actually tackle them on the domestic issues. I wouldn't be surprised if the administration is reflexively talking up the Israeli right to self-defense to fill the sound-bites vacuum while they try to figure out what the hell to do now that it seems like a situation is developing that might actually draw them in.
* A BS reason, but one I'm sure they'd use if they had to.
apostropher and I may have swapped the positions
Yeah, I thought that as I was making the post, RMP. Like everything else, I'm supremely confident in my positions right up until I change them. Back then, I thought they wanted a war, but were constrained by events. Now, events appear to be tipping in their favor.
I generally prefer keyboard nubbins to trackpads, but two fingers, well.
77: My hero. I thought I was the only one who liked the little eraser head.
Indeed. I'm totally getting a Thinkpad the next time I buy a computer.
Wow. I had a keyboard nubbin laptop as my work computer a couple of years back and really didn't like it at all.
Dude, way to harsh the mellow.
I really hate the nubbins. Trackpads FTW.
Maybe all y'all nubbin haters can get your own blog.
The nubbins are cute, but no way cute enough to make up for being on windows machines.
No one's mentioned the most important thing, namely that the Giorgio De Chirico painting in the sidebar of the blog linked in the update is fucking awesome. It's hanging in MOMA and I make a point of seeing it every time I go. It's also the sometimes desktop of my computer.
Hey - glad you liked it! Yeah, that image means a lot to me too. It's sometimes my desktop, always featured on my sites, and I'm hoping that some cropping of it makes it on to the cover of my first book...
So much for nubbin love as a granfalloon delimiter.
Hating on nubbins is just camouflaged misogyny. Why do you hate women, apostropher?
Back then, I thought they wanted a war, but were constrained by events.
See, I've reached the point now where I think they wanted a war, sure, but in the same sense I want a pony: they sound fun, but if I got one tomorrow I'd be fucked as to what I'd do with it. Like, there's probably a list somewhere of everyone they'd love to nuke flat, and Iran is probably really high on that list (even if the nukes would have "Thanks for all the good times, stay cool! --BFF, 1980 Election" stenciled on the business end), but they never really intended to go for it.
87: Holy shit, if only I had remembered the bear mentioned in that thread! Damnit.
Trackpads FTW
Why you'd want a wombat-felching mouse pointer is beyond me. But mine is not to judge.
Trackpads FTW
I just used World of Warcraft slang in another arena, didn't I?
Self-nerd-pwned.
Standpipe wins an internet upgrade or something.
Trackpads FTW.
Trackpads fuck the world. Rape it in the face, most likely.
90: Holy shit, if only I had coded the link properly! Damnit.
No no, found the link, curse was substantive not procedural.
See, I've reached the point now where I think they wanted a war, sure, but in the same sense I want a pony: they sound fun, but if I got one tomorrow I'd be fucked as to what I'd do with it. Like, there's probably a list somewhere of everyone they'd love to nuke flat, and Iran is probably really high on that list (even if the nukes would have "Thanks for all the good times, stay cool! --BFF, 1980 Election" stenciled on the business end), but they never really intended to go for it.
Of course they want a war, silly persons. They want a winning war.
As far as I can tell (and I've called everything right so far, except for two things [*]) Bush is taking strategic advice from the shade of Adolf Hitler. And you'll recall how well that worked for Uncle Wulfie.
max
['Godwin this.']
[*] I thought they had some sense to begin with and would try to actually eliminate Osama bin Fuckhead. Doing so would require a much heavier attack then they conducted, so I was wrong to expect them to conduct a heavy attack in Afghanistan. But not wrong to see that a lightweight attack would fail. I also thought Kim whathisname had a pair, and therefore the North Koreans would make hay while the sun shined. They did not. Fuckin' dickless wonder. So no Korea II. (And the door was wide open!) Why anybody worries about that loser post-revelations-of-dicklessness is beyond me.
It is a Macbook! It's refurbished. It's the one on the left. I'm getting it for $950. Intel core duo, bitchez.
Nubbins are ok, but when I had a Think Pad the nubbin eventually got all nasty from the oil on my fingers.
See, there's the problem. Stick with water-based lube and you're golden.
They sell replacement nubbins.
You think I want to spend my time nubbin-shopping?
I see we differ on what constitutes the good life.
Does the choice of "nubbin" as a descriptor mean that SB is a Friends fan?
97: Oh, I realized, but it still bugged me that the link was fucked up. 96 was a response to 90 itself, rather than 93.
I want to write a comment some day that has no content whatsoever except through complex linking of other comments to one another. Not just "96 to 90" but like "96 to 90, except for 93, although 89 and 94 unless 100."
99: I am envious!
106: Please say it isn't so.
Can I just say, sort of apropos of 107, that I love this style of comment format so much more than nested commenting? Nested comments are a barrier to entry in a conversation. So we can just assume that all comments are addressed to everyone, and even with occasional indications that they address a specific comment, they still don't feel exclusivist.
You should write it in BASIC, everybody!
104 - But! They even sell nubbins with different textures!
The one problem with the Mac Book is that it only has 512MB of memory. I have to get an upgrade immediately.
Nubbins suck hard. Trackpads suck a little less. Wireless optical mini-mouse, bitches!
But! They even sell nubbins
Butt nubbins?
JD, that is too awesome for words. I am jealous, but happy-jealous.
Nubbins suck hard.
You've mis-ordered the words.
I want to write a comment some day that has no content whatsoever except through complex linking of other comments to one another. Not just "96 to 90" but like "96 to 90, except for 93, although 89 and 94 unless 100."
You must have written tax regs in a past life.
only has 512MB of memory
Amazing how expectations change. The computer I bought upon graduating college came with 8 MB soldered on, but with two SIMM slots so that you could expand it all the way up to 72 MB. Which I did and felt like a bad ass. Also, 256 MB hard drive, baby.
I remember feeling like a bad ass when I upgraded my TRS-80 Color Computer from 4k RAM all the way up to 64k.
I am jealous of anyone who's bought a laptop online that's arrived in working condition.
120: Huh. The computer I bought my freshman year had dual floppy drives that were actually floppy. Memory was 56K, IIRC. My roommate reported that his parents' business computer, which had an actual hard drive, was quite the thing.
A former boss of mine once wistfully reminesced that in college he had scrimped and saved for a 10 meg hard drive because surely there would never be a time when he would need more than ten megs. Set for life!
Guy Bechor, an analyst who heads the Mideast Division of the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, said that Hezbollah, having made a series of errors, “is coming closer to its defeat,” and that Israel is likely to continue to carry out most of the campaign from the air to avoid being bogged down in Lebanon.
Whatever we think of the current hostilities (they are bad) the defeat of Hezbollah would be a good thing.
Also, I want Joe's new computer.
If "nubbin" is associated with Friends, it's news to me.
Note that SB denies being a Friends fan my implication only, and is therefore probably hiding something. Probably a secret. Perhaps a secret weiner.
The one problem with the Mac Book is that it only has 512MB of memory. I have to get an upgrade immediately.
If you upgrade enough that you're getting rid of the memory that came with it, make sure to sell it. Ridiculous what stuff goes for on eBay, even when it shouldn't. My brother financed his new laptop by selling a three-year-old G5 and a couple of old monitors. Absurd, but the buyers were happy.
129: Are you implying that SB is bugging Tia?
107: I was going to write a comment like that in a thread a long time ago, but never got around to it. It was going to explain a joke. Of course I can't find the thread now.
Now that I think about it, it may have been subject to [redacted].
I haven't seen this two finger scrolling, and I'm not about to trek out to the Apple store just now--but I am intrigued. Has anyone seen a video of this feature in action that's available on the internet?
BG, I don't think video of it would be particularly revelatory. But next time you're by the Apple Store, play with one of the new laptops. It really does make using a trackpad about 5x more efficient. It's one of those things like tabbed browsing that, once you use it, you can't believe it hadn't been implemented long ago. And you get used to it almost instantly.
Re: the war, my dark suspicion is that we approach the fulfillment (fulfilment? damn!) of GWB's "fight them there" mantra. In short: the biggest objection to the ongoing war in Iraq is that the Administration has no exit strategy. Well, here it is! We'll turn Iraq into a forward operating base in the war on Iran!
That way we don't have to explain why we are building permanent US bases in Iraq; as a bonus, we have a ready-made excuse for the chaos in Iraq (and Afghanistan) AND a chance to use Bush I's favorite draw-'em-out and lop-'em-off strategy (successfully road-tested in Panama and Gulf War I).
But then, who was it who warned "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"*?
*Apparently it could have been anybody.
Oh my Lord and Lady, "Fulfilment" could not look more wrong. I hang my head in shame.
Does owning a life-size cardboard likeness of David Schwimmer make you a Friends fan? I thinking, not necessarily.
Re: Macs, is the Apple Care worth getting? I'm leaning towards a Mac for when I replace my computer (sometime soon, I fear), but I'm inherently suspicious of extended warranties.
David Schwimmer sucks ass. I try to give people who are typecast by other roles a shot but he stunk up The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial. Very happy those tickets were free.
139: If you're getting a laptop, you totally want the AppleCare, because portables get knocked around enough that eventually you'll need something fixed. I got it on all the desktop Macs I owned, though, and never used it once.
139: I'm generally suspicious of extended warranties too, but I'd say laptop computers are the one product for which they are essential. Given the many, many ways laptops can break and the high labor costs involved in any repairs to them, you really do want that extended warranty.
(I know you asked about "Macs" rather than "laptops." If you were asking about desktop Macs, then I'm sorry, but you asked the wrong question.)
(On preview, 142 gets it exactly right.)
136: Man do I hope this isn't true. Who was the idiot back at the beginning of the war saying "Everybody wants to march to Baghdad, real men want to march to Tehran"?
Who was the idiot back at the beginning of the war saying "Everybody wants to march to Baghdad, real men want to march to Tehran"?
Don't know who it was, but given all the time he's had since then, he should be there by now regardless of where he started marching from.
Don't know who it was, but given all the time he's had since then, he should be there by now regardless of where he started marching from.
John Bolton.
Evidently the traffic lights in Manhatten are really really really long. Plus I don't think he can swim.
max
['No, I don't know how the walrus mustache fits into this. Why do you ask?']
BTW, re: remarks about 1941.
http://home.earthlink.net/~gojira67/iraq1941.gif
Note the greatest scan, but it'll do. Note on that map the movement of 'HAB force' from the Trans-Jordan and Palestine into Syria and Iraq, while the other British forces make the long crawl up the Tigris-Euphrates, linking up east of Damascus. Then you get the march to Tehran. (The map makes it look like it all happened at once.)
The pipeline route on that map is in error, FYI, however it is true that the T8 (T8 or T3, I forget which) does run from Mosul/Kirkuk through Syria to Lebanon.
max
['Thousand words, picture.']
141 - Indeed, he was. Overall, it was worth my time but not my money. So it worked out splendidly.
"I'm generally suspicious of extended warranties too, but I'd say laptop computers are the one product for which they are essential."
Not a bad idea for stand-alone DVD players, either. I've used them three times now. (And I used to work for Compusa, so I know what kinda crap they can be for other things, let alone what pressure is put on salespeople to hawk them.)
"Captain Queeg was good."
Best served with strawberries.
It's been geometrically proven.
GFR is skeptical about the subject of the post.
139/142: I've never had Apple Care through three laptops. One has very occasional problems and I regret not having the warranty. The other two, one lasted two years before it started to fritz, and the third is the one I'm typing on now. I'd say getting the warranty isn't *essential*, b/c you may very well want to upgrade before the thing starts to go bad anyway. But I also have decided that I'm going to get it on my next laptop.
I'm not really worried about wanting to upgrade before the three years are up--I keep computers for a while, I'm into my fifth year with the one I'm using now. Although, looking at the terms I see that the warranty only covers manufacturer defects. Out of luck if you drop it, which is all I'm really worried about. Hm, I must ponder this. I'll also try and squeeze another few months (year?) of life out of my current one first.
Well, but a lot of sort of weird fritzy things that happen eventually happen naturally: the case is a little flexible, things come loose, whatever. Plus anecdotally I've heard most people say that Apple is remarkably good about covering even stuff that users expected them not to. Obviously if you drop it from a height and the screen breaks, that's not a manufacturer problem; but any laptop is going to get jounced around a little bit during normal use, and the effects of that seem usually to be covered.
I so, so want not to be true the subject of the post -- it is fine with me to know that people are skeptical about it.
Re laptop issues, does anyone else have trouble with power supply cords and the interface between them and computers? This seems to me like such a key element of the computer and it invariably seems to start breaking before anything else. True of cell phones as well.
Applecare on a laptop is wonderful. They totally fixed things that were my fault. I got an education one and that lasted for 4 years. I do think, though, that education customers get a higher level of service.
I also think that it's probably worth getting for an ipod.
I kept my last laptop for seven years. When I finally bought a new one, I used my American Express card for that horrible what-if-I-drop-it-down-the-stairs-the-first-week breakage insurance, and also bought Apple Care. Which I have never had before, but bought on the advice of my far-more-tech-savvy brother.
The real question, of course, is why in light of recent events hasn't the Rapture Index been updated since the 10th? Maybe because the Rapture already happened. Think about it.
Rapture Ready bitches.
Rapture Ready bitches.
Some folks are very excited indeed.
Damn. The thread disappeared. Maybe the rapture did happen.
161: Yay! I'm going to move into some rapturee's house!
