Painkiller Same

Friday the 13th? Big whoop.

Monday the 13th? Now that's scary.

I saw Painkiller Jane tonight. It was okay, in a mindless fun sort of way. The acting was horrible and the plot was perfunctory, but it kept me entertained for an hour. Unless the quality improves quickly I don't expect it to last very long.

Or they could pander to the "hot girls with big guns" crowd: lots of cheesecake and high-caliber fully-automatic weapons, with a sassy attitude and snarky sense of humor. Make it a satire of all things testosterone, in the way Special Unit 2 was a satire of X-Files, and it could develop a following.

Did anyone else think that Kristanna Loken was nowhere near as attractive as she was in Terminator 3? And dear god, someone help her work on her delivery.

Half-assed post, I know. I'm tired from getting up at dawn to walk dogs, then being at the doctor's office all morning with my mother.

I come to bury Vonnegut, not to praise him

Kurt Vonnegut is dead and I cannot muster the requisite respect due the recently departed. So, fuck that. I intend to bury him, in the classic Khrushchev sense.

It's not that I'm glad he's dead, per se; it's more of a relieved "Well, thank God that's over with." Because, while I liked many of his books and short stories (a notable favorite being Harrison Bergeron), his politics were becoming intolerable.

Of course he had a right to his opinion. I will even grant that, as an anthropologist, he had more justification to speak his mind regarding culture and politics than, say, Bono or Tom Cruise. I don't even dislike him for his open contempt of Bush.

But when he said he admired terrorists and suicide bombers, that crossed the line.

In 2005, he was interviewed by David Nelson for The Australian, a national newspaper that carries similar weight to the Wall Street Journal here in America. The actual article is damn hard to find these days, most likely because of its controversial nature. I have been able to corroborate the most salient points, which are these:

1. He regards terrorists as "very brave people";
2. Terrorists die for their self-respect and/or their culture;
   
3. Terrorism is comparable to the bombing of Hiroshima.

Go here and here for more. I'd dearly love to link to the main article, but I cannot find it. (Edit: Transcript of article found here.) His son replies to the outcry against his father here, but I don't consider that a defense. Why? Because surely a man as outspoken as Vonnegut was would be capable of defending himself if he desired, so either he didn't care what people thought of him, did not disagree with the assessment, or both.

I'm not going to address the second and third points. I'm simply going to demolish the first one and let the others crumble under the weight of their own idiocy after that.

IMPRIMIS

Some of you may be laboring under the misapprehension that terrorism and guerrilla warfare are the same. Though they share some characteristics, let me assure you that they are not, for one simple reason:

Guerrilla warfare targets legitimate military assets. Terrorism targets civilians.

Yes, it really is that simple. It's also very easy for guerrilla warfare to become terrorism, such as when a suicide bomber decides to blow up a bus instead of a military checkpoint: a checkpoint is a legitimate target because it is being staffed by soldiers, and by killing or wounding soldiers you are hurting your enemy's ability to effectively wage war. Civilians may be injured in this, but that is not the purpose of the attack.

Deliberately attacking civilians, however, serves one purpose: killing innocent people in the hopes that you will demoralize your enemy. And as we all know, the deliberate slaughter of civilians, especially those unable to defend themselves, is a war crime.

I repeat for effect: Vonnegut admires war criminals.

SECUNDUS

William Gibson has the best statement about terrorism I have ever seen. In Neuromancer, he explains:

There is always a point at which the terrorist ceases to manipulate the media gestalt. A point at which the violence may well escalate, but beyond which the terrorist has become symptomatic of the media gestalt itself. Terrorism as we ordinarily understand it is innately media-related.

In other words: terrorism works best when it is talked about, and the terror spreads. But there comes a point when the terrorists become so absorbed in their "message" that they forget their original purpose and commit acts of terror for the sheer sake of terror -- just for the pleasure of it.

Apt readers may notice how this is very similar to the motivations of serial killers, specifically the John Allen Muhammed and Lee Boyd Malvo. Better known as the Beltway Snipers, they seemed to enjoy the fear and media attention as much as they did the killing, if not more. Were they terrorists? You bet:

In May 2006... at Muhammad's Maryland trial, Malvo revealed many details of their three-phased plan... If carried out, the pair would have recruited a small army of alienated youths, used Muhammad's U.S. military training to instruct and indoctrinate them in Canada, and then mount coordinated terrorist attacks on the entire United States.

And there should be no doubt they are serial killers: both Malvo and Muhmanned were convicted for committing no less than six murders. The proper definition of a serial killer, by the by, is someone who kills several people in three or more separate events with an "emotional cooling-off" period in between the homicides.

Once again, for effect: Vonnegut admires this kind of person for his bravery.

TERTIUS

In conclusion:

• Terrorists kill innocent people.
• Terrorists are frequently serial killers.
• Terrorists manipulate the media to achieve their ends.
  
• Vonnegut, by virtue of being an award-winning author, is part of "the media."
• Vonnegut admires terrorists, IE serial killers, for their bravery.
  
• Vonnegut has been successfully manipulated.
• Everything else he says on the issue is now suspect.
  

Poetry for the Emotionally Exhausted

The universe whispers
Of chains and shadows
Beneath a delicate sky
Manipulating the apparatus
Of worship and need

Blatant Fanservice

Mom had her surgery today, and I'm sure you'll all be glad to know that she's doing well. I, however, have to put a fresh coldpack on her knee for 20 minutes every hour. Forty minutes is just enough time for me to get into a good writing groove, then have to stop and completely lose my train of thought.

So, blatant fanservice for making you wait:

Hmm, I wonder what she could be doing?

Ooh! It's so big! I can barely fit it in my mouth!

Milk, it does a body good!

Dark Feast

I'm going to phone this one in, folks. Mom has her surgery tomorrow, and it's been nuts here. At least it's not midnight... yet.... so I'm going to post an Invocation I created for my D&D character, who is a Warlock.

If you don't understand it, my apologies. As I said, I'm just posting this thing to fulfill my mandate of "Something creative every night, Monday-Saturday".

If you do speak D&D, I made this because my Warlock is power-hungry, and while there are lots of neat invocations there are precious few slots for them... so I borrowed a page from Highlander.

The Dark Feast
Lesser Invocation; 4th

This invocation, when performed over a dying or recently (within an hour) dead warlock, allows the caster to absorb previously unknown Invocations.

Limitations: The caster can only absorb Invocations of grades he is capable of casting (so a 7th level Warlock can only absorb Least and Lesser Invocations, regardless of the CL of the Warlock he defeats), and can only absorb a number of Invocations equal to the caster's Charisma bonus. It takes a full-round action to absorb one Invocation.

I don't think this is overpowered because:

1. It's useless unless I kill another Warlock;
2. Limits what I can take based on class level and Charisma;
3. Makes me a big ol' target to all the other Warlocks out there.

Plus, it brings a nicely cannibalistic mood to a class that's supposed to be dark and witchy but is frequently regarded as "just another caster."

Hah! A minute to spare!

Realization made upon waking

---------------------------------

Life is like playing a flute...
to get anything out of it you have to
finger holes and blow.

---------------------------------

Pax vobiscum

This post touches on Discordianism, but there will be no silliness today. Today is Good Friday and I will show it respect.

I'm honestly not sure if I should write today, because I feel burdened to write something about my beliefs, yet I also have no desire to make the beliefs of others seem trivial. So if I cause offense, dear ones, please forgive me, as it's certainly not intended.

I grew up in a Protestant Christian household. Every day, at breakfast, my mother would read aloud a passage from the Bible, followed by a mini-essay from a daily devotional. I think the Bible is a rich source of history, case studies in ethics, and literary symbolism. For the better part of a year I studied the Book of Revelations just because it contains some of the most potent written imagery I have ever experienced.

I am deeply shamed by all the sin and crimes that are committed daily in Jesus' name, but I am also aware that these are the results of human baggage and selective interpretation of the scripture. I believe that Christ's teachings are universal. Love, acceptance, tolerance, forgiveness, piety, charity; the world would be a better place if we all practiced these things, whatever our religions might be.

I believe in Christian values...

... but I don't know if I have faith any more.

Is it possible to be a Christian without believing in God? To practice the morality without the faith? Is there such a thing as a Deistic Christian Philosopher?

I'm so horribly tempted to end this with a "Hail Eris," but that would be flippant and sacrilegious. It would, however, perfectly illustrate my current confused emotional state. A philosopher, you see, can entertain two or more different philosophies in her head. But religions tend to be exclusive things.

I love Christianity. But I don't think I can have faith in it any more. It's become a philosophy to me. Discordianism is a philosophy, too, but it's something that I can have faith in... I'm just not sure if I should.

I'm not sure what I believe,
So I believe I'll have a drink.