I've been eliminated.

I'll post the whole story in the next couple days, but in short one lucky shot under my front door wettened my feet, thus eliminating me from Street Wars.

In the meantime, CNN will be covering Street Wars tonight on The Situation Room at 7pm EST.

Oh, Bullocks...

If you're wondering what the hell I was talking about with Sumner Redstone coming after me, check out this article for a clue...

LA Times: "Assassin Game Is A Hit, Man"

In the meantime, I think I was a little paranoid at the time. A newsvan was parked outside my apartment and, really, who wouldn't think they were anything but assassins?

(if you're asked to log in to read the article, try:
login: latimesspam@morons.org
password: bugmenot
or click here for other options)

Comforting News If You're Considering Cutting Off Your Own Penis To Use As A Weapon

Dr. Greg Bales, associate professor of urology at the University of Chicago, said severed penises are uncommon but surgery usually works. "As long as the penis is placed on ice and reattached within a few hours, the success is usually pretty good," Bales said.

Phew!

Although if it was MY penis it would have been an effective weapon and taken out an entire SWAT team, unlike this guy who was easily subdued with a tazer gun:

Chicago Sun Times: Man severs own penis, throws it at officers

PS: Check out the URL for this entry:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-ouch17.html

Sumner Redstone is after me...

But no, he will not get me.

Too Little, Too Late

My biggest problem with the US invading Iraq, isn't that we shouldn't have never ousted Sadaam, but that deceiving the public about the threat of WMDs was the wrong way to go. I know my right wing readers will say we weren't lied to, and more on this in a bit, but first I was to stress that I think Sadaam did need to be kicked out, and personally I would back removing almost any dictator or government that engages in genocide. Had we been honest about our reasons for removing Sadaam, it may have been a tougher sell to US citizens and some international allies, but I think our integrity would still remain, and our mission in Iraq would be going much smoother as a result. Most of the time, the Bush Admin has to defend itself against accused lies, instead of merely being an aggressor.

My personal story about supporting the war on Iraq. Like many, I was on the fence whether we should invade or not. There were countless reasons to remove Sadaam, even though many of the accused atrocities had happened long before 2003. But the moment it became about WMDs, and the UN was sending in inspectors who kept coming back saying they were not finding any evidence, I was skeptical... why make it rest on WMDs if an international investigation couldn't determine if they didn't exist? I was encouraged by the like of Colin Powell, who I respected and trusted. When he presented evidence that WMDs were being hidden around Iraq, I was open to the idea. But after studying the issue rigorously, online, on TV, and in print, only one thing eventually made me change my mind.

My Uncle Skip.

A few months prior to invasion I was visiting Toledo and having dinner with him and my brother and sisters. The topic came up about the sketchy intelligence that substantiated the existance of WMDs, and I asked Skip what he thought. His reply was along the lines of, "The President and his staff wouldn't go to war unless they were absolutely sure there were WMDs, and they probably have a lot more intelligence supporting this than what they're revealing to the public."

And with that, I was pro-war.

Now, I kick myself. There was no additional good info. The intel was all bad. Maybe this is why they say you shouldn't argue religion and politics with family...

(and the part that burns me is that the same right wingers who blame the bad intelligence on Clinton's handling of our spy agencies are the same right wingers who cling to hope that the intel wasn't bad, but just that the WMDs were moved...)

So, back to my main point, which is best spelled out by a New York Times article... (remember, the same pansy New York Times that was pro-war and was spreading the same bad WMD intelligence that the right wingers still believe)

A Bush Alarm: Urging U.S. to Shun Isolationism

excerpts:

The president who made pre-emption and going it alone the watchwords of his first term is quietly turning in a new direction, warning at every opportunity of the dangers of turning the nation inward and isolationist, and making the case for international engagement on issues from national security to global economics...

...To his critics, the internationalist approach is too little too late — the price Mr. Bush has paid for a foreign policy that seemed relentlessly focused on building defensive walls and hunting enemies. A search of the White House Web site confirms that Mr. Bush, who in the days before he took office kept the take-no-prisoners speeches of Teddy Roosevelt on a table at his ranch, made little mention of "globalization" for much of his first five years in office, even when European leaders brought it up.

Asked once, several years ago, about his aversion to the topic, one of his senior aides said Mr. Bush associated the word with "mushy Clintonianism."

"It ranks up there with 'nation-building,' " he added...

Bryan Adams: Loved by Islam

Here's one strike against Dubai and the UAE: they're genuinely excited by an upcoming concert by Bryan Adams. A Canadian.

However, I find it pretty damned telling that not only is this concert apparently selling out a Dubai stadium, but the sponsors include Virgin Megastores, the Hard Rock Cafe, and Hallmark greeting cards.

I know that the main stream media and especially the right wing blogs won't point this out, but the UAE is pretty damned Westernized, and not the hotbed of terrorist activity many would lead one to believe.

For further updates on whats happening in the UAE from a locals point of view, check in on Metroblogging Dubai now and again...

BarCamp?

I visited an interesting internet/computer convention/fest/thingy called BarCamp on Saturday night, mostly because I heard a bunch of reputable bloggers would be attending. It was also put together in part by Sean Bonner from blogging.la, and I thought it might be great material for my first vlog.

The concept and execution for BarCamp is fascinating, and the subject of the video I made about it you can find here. In short, a bunch of programmers, web designers, bloggers, and others with an interest in internet communications simply decide to meet up for a couple days and whip together a conference from the inside out. Anyone can present on whatever they want. And the whole thing is free.

I met Marc Brown, who created Buzznet (the site where I host my photos in my sidebar) and he made a great observation that BarCamp is a great way to show that Silicon Valley isn't the only center of the internets. In fact, also in attendance were folks who created such sites as Deviant Art, Weblogs, Inc., Technorati, Boing Boing, and more. The concentration of genius in the room was overwhelming. If only I was seeking a career in the field it would have been a networking bonanza. Nonetheless, as a mere "blogfucker" it was a very cool experience.

My video is far from ideal - lights were very, very low at the warehouse, and I arrived after the majority of attendees had left. Still, I think it at least partly answers what BarCamp is all about.