About This Blog
A blog about my life, universe, etc. At any given time you might find something endlessly interesting or just me ruminating on something else, which no one (not even myself) finds interesting. That's the way blogs go, I suppose. Anyway, I was eleventh in line, and you weren't. Hah!
Scripture of the Moment 2 Nephi 2:27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.
The views and opinions expressed herein are not attributable to my employer, Blogger, Google, those who link to me, or anyone other than the author (as indicated). Comments of visitors are the responsibility of the invididuals posting. No responsibility is taken for the content of materials linked to from this site. Any questions relating to the administration of this site or its content should be directed to Sarah Marie Parker-Allen, at email@example.com.
-- If I mention something that's been published and is still available on the Internet, I will link to it. Well, if I know it's there, anyway.
-- Once I've posted something, I will not make substantive changes to the body of the post. Any changes will be noted with an "EDIT" tag at the bottom of the post in question, or will be noted in a subsequent post. Typos, stylistic errors, and link updates will occur, without time limit (though if it's been a while, I'll let you know). If I really really regret a post, it's likely I'll post about cats or something for a while in pennance. You've been warned.
-- If I find something through the efforts of another blogger (in fact, of anyone I can link to), I'll credit them with a link (the style of such a link is pretty much up to my mood, so don't expect consistency in that area).
-- My comment policy is listed below.
I like comments, and I'll keep them activated. HOWEVER, if you want to start a flamewar, go somewhere else. If you want to get me to start arguing with you about Ohio State vs. Michigan, whether Mormons are Christian, how stupid being spoiler free is, or pretty much anything else inflamatory (inflamatory is in the eye of me in this case -- if you don't trust my judgement, too bad), go somewhere else. All links to pornography, all instances of vulgar language, and anything else I don't think is appropriate for my sisters, brother, neice, and nephew to see (ages 1-18), or quite frankly appropriate for ME to see, will be edited as I see fit (probably with links to something else, or alternate words, or what have you). All spam comments, including blatant off-topic self-promotion, will be deleted. If you've been banned, feel free to email me; if you're uncivil, please know that I'm interested in finding out exactly how many people I can add to my killfile without bringing my processer speed to zero, and don't mind using your address in my experiments. I reserve the right to delete and/or ban anyone I want. If you need to say it that badly, go get your own blog. They're free, you know.
A Note About Chatting and Emails
I'm not what you would call an extremely social or extraverted person. As a matter of fact, I tend to test 100% introvert on Myer-Briggs and other personality profile tests. Therefore, please be aware that most of the time, if I don't already know you (either in person or through weeks/months/years of email contact) the chances are I won't be very talkative if you IM me. I like having a long time to consider what I say, and that goes double for what I say to total strangers. Please don't think me scary, rude, hateful, or even just someone in a perpetual bad mood, if chat efforts are unsuccessful. Quite frankly, it's probably better for you to go find someone else to chat with, unless you have something significant to say. And if it's that important, you should probably email me. Which reminds me to let you know now that if you do choose to email me, it might be days, weeks, months, years, or never before I email you back. It takes a lot of energy for me to come up with replies to random inquiries from strangers, and most of the time there's something I'd rather be doing instead. Your understanding is appreciated. I'm not saying don't try, I'm just saying -- have minimal expectations, okay? Thanks. Oh, and if you DO know me, don't treat this statement as an excellent excuse not to talk to me. You know who you are.
And then there's the Hermit Kingdom...
You know, the world waits until I say "I'm not going to blog for a while" to start an accelerated messiness process (I mean, it's always messy, and usually getting messier on principle -- it's the big movements that wait until I'm annoyed with the world) and I'm really tired of its lack of sensitivity. I mean, what about my needs??
Anyway, North Korea decided to make its semi-regular contribution to the global messiness level today, with a public announcement regarding it's possession of a nuclear bomb.
Now, who is surprised by this? Really. How many regimes on this planet, which don't already have nuclear weapons, are known to be trying to get them? And which one is the most secretive, least likely to be swayed by global opinion or under-the-table international bribery efforts, and so forth? I mean, duh. These people have been asserting their right to have one for, oh I don't know, as long as I can remember. They supposedly told US negotiators that they already had one almost two years ago. And I think that Iraq's example has given everyone on this planet a really clear notion of exactly why you don't want the US thinking you have weapons of mass destruction, unless you're serious (and maybe not even then, but we know that North Korea's government is even less prone to rational thinking than most governments, and no government is exactly getting an A+ in that subject even on a good day) -- they know that we aren't joking around, and they know that we assume they aren't joking around.
Anyway, it seems to me that this all amounts to the equivalent of a man who tells the police (who have him surrounded) that he has a gun, too. He knows there are 80 of them and one of him, and sure he's got a couple of hostages, but he can't really watch/control them all that well, and he's got like, zero actual power over those guys in the uniforms. Saying he has a gun seems, from his position, to be a way of leveling the playing field -- he's powerful, and someone to be listened to, and someone to be consulted, and you had better not be trying to sneak his hostages some food while he's not looking, because he can shoot them, or you, any time he wants.
Before, it was like "Umm, chief, he might have a gun" and lots of worried "let's see if we can watch him to figure out if he has a gun, and maybe if we provide him with steel that's only good for making spoons, he'll be so happy that he'll forget about wanting a gun" talks, with the guy who owns the building next door and the governor and the hostage-taker's wife, and the dog catcher, and a few eager but relatively powerless police officers all in on the conversation. It was like a group conference by telephone, with more worrying about the placement of flags and who gets to sit where, than one would ordinarily expect.
Is it, therefore, any surprise that the hostage-taker, in that scenario, demands to talk only with the chief negotiator/police chief, and tells the dog-catcher and his friends and everyone who's listening on the radio that he has a gun, too? No it isn't.
In any case, the owner of the building and the hostage-taker's wife and everyone listening on the radio knew he had a gun already, and even if he didn't for sure, he was still awfully dangerous, what with the hostages and his gigantic collection of hunting knives and the stockpile of rat poison in the garage. Now we've all admitted it to each other -- how's about we actually solve the problem that's been there, staring us in the face, for the last 50 years? posted by Sarah at 7:42 PM. |