/|\

“Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.”


Friday, September 15, 2006

Hail Eris! Hail Discordia!

Euoi! Euoi! Io Euoi! Oh wait, that's for Dionysos.

So 2003 UB313, aka Xena, now has an official name: Eris! Eris, goddess of chaos! Eris of the golden apple, Eris who didn't get invited to too many parties, though that's changed. Eris, daughter of Night, goddess of Discordians, and all around lady you wouldn't wanna mess with.

OK, I'm geeking out. My love of Greek myth and astronomy were born at the same time, no surprise.

And, in what seems like an almost appropriate response (given that it's the goddess of chaos and discord):

Amazingly, right-wing blogger Mike Janitch says that the renaming is a liberal sniping at the current world situation. After all, the name Eris means "strife" and "discord", right? And the discoverer of Eris, Mike Brown, is at Caltech– which is in California! GASP!

In his own (bizarrely alternate-Universe) words:

Come on! The only obvious thing is that he was taking a cheap shot at world affairs (and one can only assume at the USA). Why assume the anti-war vibe? Because of his own statements, coupled with the fact that he is from the California Institute of Technology.. located in far west Moonbat country.

Yes, one can only assume.

[snip]

Mike Brown, who suggested the new name, said that the name Eris was appropriate because of all the strife and discord in the astronomical community over the redefinition of the term "planet".

There will always be people who see conspiracies under the bed, or see fascists in every business suit, or look for subversion and danger in the color of toothpaste. Or at least the flouride.

Anyway, hail Eris! And please don't crash my server!

|

posted by Mary, 7:30 PM

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

I Am Not a Potato

Well, doesn't this sound nice: Air Force chief: Test weapons on testy U.S. mobs

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before being used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary said Tuesday.

The object is basically public relations. Domestic use would make it easier to avoid questions from others about possible safety considerations, said Secretary Michael Wynne.

"If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation," said Wynne. "(Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press."

Um...


Topato gives it two thumbs down

First of all, just because they say it's non-leathal doesn't mean it isn't potentially leathal, nor does it mean that you get show with it and are fine in a few minutes. This isn't like turning the hoses on a riot.

Secondly, it just sounds weird--"Let's test this weapon on our own citizens before using it in a war." What? On the battlefield, you are (presumably) fighting an armed enemy. You want leathal weapons. I mean, if it kills the enemy, OK--why test it on your own people first? Isn't this backwards?

Thank God they didn't bomb Los Angeles to see if the atomic bomb would work before dropping it on Hiroshima.

Domestically, "crowd control" can mean anything from a full-scale riot to a peaceful protest to a bunch of concert goers. If you take away the barrier of death, the idea that shooting someone could kill them, you take away the idea of not shooting your own citizens. All it takes is for the cops--or, God forbid, an untrained security guard, or some bored kid in the National Guard--to get nervous, or angry, and the crowd is pumped full of microwaves, because hey--it's not like it's leathal or anything.

It just takes away the public's desire to protest.

Granted, a hundred years ago, people died protesting. They died creating unions. People died in the Civil Rights struggle. The average person probably won't die from this--though who knows what the long range physical repercussions are (if any).

However, when those in charge know that the weapons won't kill, what restraint is there? What reason is there not to abuse this? Not to use this to break up any demonstration--hell, any group of people--they don't like?

What's to stop them from using it on you?

"Well, I don't go out protesting."

And you're the ones who never change anything.

|

posted by Mary, 7:30 PM