It's war, Jim, but not as we know it

Tom Panarese:
--when GW said we are at war, I was reminded of the Bugs Bunny line "Of course you realize, this means war."
Let's not give the man too much credit. Comparing him to Mr Bunny is completely unfair to the white-gloved rabbit. I'm thinking more Yosemite Sam than Elmer Fudd these days, though Mr Sam is *not* a dolt.

war is a word that has such weight, at least for me, that I wonder if it's being thrown around a little too much lately and that maybe we should step back for a second from all the rhetoric.
Stepping back to let heads think about this is necessary. If, after careful consideration, an attack is still deemed the best option, that's one thing. But the current emotive, knee-jerk reaction, feels wrong.

--I see that VH-1 is putting together tribute montages set to "inspiring" songs.
VH1 UK aired a "day of respect" from Friday through Sunday, playing intellectual music and no commercials. Possibly the best programming they've done in a while.

Didn't see them play Eva's "Over The Rainbow," which is just *so* the song of the year. (2001 as much as 1994.)

Because my feelings aren't exactly in alignment with national furvor, I haven't felt like expressing them. Therefore, I've been very edgy, unable to sleep, unable to think, and somewhat embarassed, mainly because my friends have been sending me a barrage of patriotic and religious "reassuring" e-mails
We can all live without that sort of thing. Honest, personal thoughts are always welcome. Mindless forwarding of someone else's mushing gets my back up at any time.

Anyway, sorry if this is disjointed and completely idiotic.
It's not, and it's not, and it's making sense.

---

paulo:
I don't think that Bush is going to bomb Mecca and kill thousands of muslim pilgrims or anything like that
This is *very* good news for fans of Sir Paul McCartney. To lose one Beatle to a United Station with delusions of grandeur was bad enough. To lose a second... [1]

I am very worried personally about the social consequences, that is, the transformation of our world into a police state, but that's not my point here.
It's one we ought to be thinking about, I reckon. These are the things that the terrorists, whoever they are, have won from us. Personally, I'm determined that that price be kept as low as possible.

before the attack, the Afghanistan taliban regime was universally condemned as a bunch of "ignorant psychos"
Once again, we damn these people with faint praise.

Would Bush and the rest of western countries leave the taliban regime alone then? Could we imagine the taliban asking for... say, official diplomatic recognition in exchange for Bin Laden's head?
They can try. As far as I'm concerned, that militia will not be recognised as the government of anything but itself until it stops perverting the clear word of Mohammed, or implodes.

Perhaps, but Bush was already willing to subsidize them months ago for their hard-line antidrug policy.
As I've thrown in before, will the war on drugs be squelched by this war on terrorism?

to what degree can the U.S. attack Afghanistan (and change the regime in power there) without pissing off the rest of islamic countries; it seems like the taliban aren't very liked even among muslims (they don't even get along with Iran, which is saying something)
A *lot* less than it said in the days of Ayatollah Khomeni and his fatwa of the fortnight. Iran has modernised and reformed a lot in the past decade.

[1] Sir Paul's nickname is "Macca."

War goes bang Angela Bigos:
patriotism has a good side too - it can unite us, especially when that terrible word- war- is being used.
I suppose it depends whether one reacts more to the supposed unification of "patriotism" or the division that is at the heart of "war." As long standing readers will know, I have very little truck with Britain as an entity, and feel excluded when people play the patriotic card. War is as divisive by definition.

This is the USA's war. It's not my war. In the unlikely event that conscription returns to these isles, and my number comes up, I'm taking that as a granting of full US citizenship and work and residence permissions through NAFTA.

But of course, we haven't really been *asked* if that is what we want, we've been *told* and that makes it even more difficult to get one's mind around it.
On this side, we've had something of a debate. Last Thursday, there was a live debate on the BBC, where the crowd got a bit boisterous and tended to shout down those pushing for war. While our top politicians are pushing for war, there's a large element saying to back off. I recall a similar movement in the 1991 Gulf War, where the media seemed to censor anyone who thought the campaign was a bad idea.

I can see the difference between silly patriotism ("Let's attack Canada!")
Yeah, you lost last time (;

One of the ways we create monsters is to keep ignoring the monstrous things they do. This particular monster has done a good deal and, not having been stopped yet, sees no reason to stop but plunges wildly ahead which leads us to Tuesday morning.
Are you arguing about bin Laden, or the US government's ongoing meddling in the affairs in Palestine, where a ceasefire was declared last morning? Yes, I know the answer, but the question raised itself.

Sometimes life produces situations for which there is no non-violent way to deal with it.
In my calculus, stopping ongoing crimes against humanity is the beginning and end of the line. Last week's events, *if they form part of a pattern*, qualify. I must add the qualification, as the evidence I've seen has been sketchy to flimsy.

We simply must accept the fact that we're in this now, this is inevitable,
This is where we must agree to differ. The past is inevitable. We have the power to shape the future. Individually, our actions are limited. As a collective, we can draw on each others talents to shape our own destiny.

Was it inevitable that the Pilgrim Fathers would remain social outcasts in England? Only if they accepted that fate.

Was it inevitable that the Colonies would remain under the rule of George III? Only if they accepted that fate.

As I said right back at the beginning, we're bigger than the blighters behind this. *Far* bigger.

We need to be here for each other regardless of where we personally stand on the subject.
This is true. While I disagree with some of Angela's points, I don't think there's that much distance between us. Other than that annoying 6000 miles between Birmingham and California.

Letterman Monday After seeing some *amazingly* positive reviews of Letterman Monday on tvbarn, I ran a tape under the next-night repeat on ITV2, watched it the next night, and post about it the next night. (Confused? Good!:)

Everyone said how moving Letterman was. He was emotional, but I thought the real emotion was written all over Tom Brokaw. Journalists are paid not to break down on air. But journalists are human, too, and I find it more comforting to be reminded of that from time to time.

Mayor Giuliani *has* been a great leader through this crisis. Mayor Giuliani wouldn't use the word "crusade" to describe his campaign; a word that carries the same baggage in the Arab world as "jihad" carries in the West. Mayor Giuliani wouldn't mix his metaphors between the wild west and statesman-like language. And, as Rather pointed out, Mayor Giuliani wouldn't tolerate the thick divisions between the FBI and CIA.

Namedroppers paulo:
Since I'm not really versed in the inner story of britpop (unlike Emma), let me guess: Ray=Damon Albarn? Skyline=Oasis? (That's what I thought when Skyline first appeared on the book, but of course, the portrait it makes later of the lead singer doesn't fit exactly...)
Skyline *is* Oasis; Ray, I think, is Liam Gallagher (I think he's the one that can hold a conversation.) Drew, for the record, *is* Richie Edwards, quondam member of the Manic Street Preachers.

> For ten bonus points, readers can try to identify Emma's sister in the text.
Isn't Viva herself? You're not telling me that it's Treena, are you...
There are bits of Lisa in Viva, though I reckon that she's very autobiographical. And in Treena, especially the bit where complete strangers remark on how good she looks, and the whole relationship between the characters. But I think there's a fair bit of Lisa hiding in the character of Uncle Manny.

[Raises eyebrow] Uh... well, you are the one that has met her. I guess I saw Manny too much as the "gay uncle/father figure" character to actually pay attention to his personal traits.
Ignore the personal traits, like the Lixz Taylor fixation; many of them went into Treena. It's more the way that Manny acts as Viva's conscience, suggesting that doing X might be a rotten move, but if she must...

Hints and tips that there's a huge scandal looming about UK Millionaire. The story knocking the US war off the front page of the Sun is a small hint for the illiterate. Further coverage in TWIGS...

War! Bang! War! Bang! Tom Panarese:
I�ve been reading a lot of and a lot about the press coverage in this country and there is an inordinate amount of flag waving going on.
Well, if you're sure that's what they're waving...

Now, that flag waving is finally starting to be criticized a little and people are wondering if there is going to be a governmental clamp down on the press if we do go to war.
I'd be surprised if there were an *overt* clamp down on the press. But misleading briefings, careful leaking from the political ends, a nod and a wink, these things can have the same effect.

The Fox 5 News in Washington DC is giving half-hourly updates (and interrupting my Simpsons reruns)
We have it worse. The BBC ditched Thursday's "Buffy" in favour of coverage of yet another religious service from New York. This was a simulcast with their rolling news television service, and their continuous news service.

Email of complaint has been fired at Auntie. If they're not careful they'll have the season's Big Baddie - who would have been introduced in the postponed episode - on their trail.

under the title of �America United,� and whenever a reporter is on the screen they feel the need to repeat that title (�I�m blah blah with Fox 5 live at the Pentagon, American United. Tonight, blah blah�).
America United? Sounds like a poor football side. And we all know how good the USA is at football, finishing 32nd and stone last at the last World Cup. Could America United beat AC Berlusconi? Inter Minestrone? Arbroath Smokie? I don't think so.

is anyone else wondering if we�re seeing certain images to have support thrown behind our �president� and his war effort?
Of course you are. The media wants to be seen to be patriotic, doing its bit for the climate of public opinion that (er) they've created.

Once again, I'm reminded of The Week Diana Windsor Crashed. The public was shocked, the media whipped this shock into a frenzy, lashed out against the Queen - who preferred to sing from her own sheet - and before the week was out, the public was baying for Brenda's blood.

Well, a few people were. Most people, those who actually thought about things, saw this as a complete load of cobblers.

President Gould has been prepared to think before he dives in. What a sensible man he is.

[Bush has] not only used the word �crusade� but he�s named the retaliation mission �Infinite Justice.� Sounds like something out of a comic book. But I might just be talking out of my ass here.
No, fair point. "Crusade," like "Jihad," or "Distinct Culture," is a Loaded Word. It can go off in your hand at any time.

"Infinite" is a bad word for operational names, it suggests an open-ended commitment. "Justice" is another Loaded Word. The combination does not meet the US Defense (sic) Department's guidelines for naming operations.

welcome to America where you�re allowed to express your opinion as long as everyone else agrees with it?
Same as it ever was... same as it ever was.

I think most of the people who are outraged and clamoring for war don�t realize how persistent their perceived enemy is. Just look at what they did to the Soviets.
It's not too much of a stretch to say that they killed the USSR. Without the military stretch in Afghanistan, the USSR would have been far stronger.

Granted, the Soviet objective in the 1980s and their tactics were different than what ours probably are
The USSR's aims were to prop up their puppet government against Islamic fundamentalists. From what I can tell, the USA's unstated aim is to (er) impose a puppet government at the expense of Islamic fundamentalists.

Those in Afghanistan who are of the belief that this is a holy war will fight like it is and that means they�ll be very hard to defeat.
One of the things I'm still not clear about: exactly *how* popular is the Taliban militia amongst ordinary Afghani? I'd suggest they're not too popular, given 3 million refugees in Pakistan and Iran at the end of last month. On the other hand, what is the alternative? A return to the lawlessness and anarchy that marked Afghanistan between 1991 and 96 may be even worse.

You know it's autumn when... ... the central heating kicks in

... the lawn is growing fallen leaves faster than grass

... it's still dark when you wake up

... you get your jumpers out of the draw they've been sitting in since the start of summer

... swallows no longer live on the telegraph wires

... the pub down the road is advertising for Christmas lunches

... you can see your breath steam up outside

... the moths that have been living in your jumper all summer hit you with their little suitcases

... the weatherman says "It's a bit nippy out."

... the nights and days are equal

... you finish this post.

Fallout paulo, quoting Someone:
>Would you want to give up a lot of your privacy rights for security?
The problem is that this dilemma is a bogus one, i.e., it's based on the premise that the measures that are going to be adopted are actually going to enhance our security.
Not only does this bear repeating, it bears repeating until you are sick of hearing it. There is no causal effect between an increase in security and a loss of privacy. Nor is there a causal effect between a loss of privacy and an increase in security.

The only thing a loss of security will ensure is that the government knows more about you.

in some cases, like the banning of cryptographic software, they are completely useless
Some? Read most. The amount the average lawmaker knows about modern technology can be written on the back of a moderate-sized matchhead.

As for ID cards, one of the issues that Iain introduced in his post days ago, here in Spain we've had them forever, and well, I don't feel my privacy specially violated.
Maybe it's a cultural thing: one of the things that British liberals celebrate is that there *is* no identity card, nor even anything that is widely expected in lieu. If you want to pay by cheque, the bank issues a card. If you want to buy a drink, the brewers have their cards. Until a few years ago, the driving license didn't carry a photograph.

Lastly, about surveillance cameras, I used to feel quite disturbed about them
There are so many in Britain that it's literally impossible to live without bumping into more than one of them. In the traditional British way, they are mainly old, poorly maintained, and using the same video tape as when they were first installed. This is why I don't rail against CCTV here - it doesn't do what it says on the tin.

War Simulations From The 1270s On MSNBC! So I was watching CNBC, waiting for them to play an old Leno from way back when. (I'm still waiting, by the way. They showed the "unpreecedented" Friday Tribute show instead.)

They were simulcasting MSNBC, and they had a couple of talking heads in the studio, earnestly discussing the locations of the ships and aircraft sent to the Middle East. Our network anchor indicated the position of the ships and aircraft by judicious use of stars on a wall chart.

Is that the best they can do? Ten years ago, the BBC constructed a scale model sandpit of the Persian Gulf, complete with running water, toy ships and aircraft, and let Peter Snow run loose in his playpen. For this conflict, they've already constructed a three-dimensional virtual reality Supermap, where the presenter can move craft.

For a network that is supposedly sponsored by one of the world's biggest computer software companies to still use the same technology they had when covering the Battle of Agincourt is completely risible.

Of course, there is the chance that they, too, constructed a high-tech Supermap, only it's on a Microsoft-powered computer, and, er, it went down.

Strange little girl Victoria C:
I bought Boys for Pele of course, listened a couple of times. I loved 'Caught a Light Sneeze' and 'Hey Jupiter'.
The latter is, quite possibly, one of Tori's most under-rated recordings.

I was very disappointed when I saw Tori in concert, not because of her performance, but because of the fans I saw...I remember how Grasshopper and I looked around at all these girls with wings and sparkles on
Maybe it's the location, or the timing of the concerts during school exams, or something, but there were so few of these at the Wolverhampton gigs. A couple of people dressing up, but no different from your average Kenickie gig. Curious.

I mean, even now...the radio stations have been playing the same crap dance music for years.
Tell me about it. Grr.
[looks at Mr Victoria.]

'Bjork who?'
When one of Ms Gudmondsdottir's most high-profile fans is the breakfast DJ for a national pop station, this ceases to be quite such a problem.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the same is true of all art, imo.
Well put.

The Tori fans here are much easier to talk to than on other lists...I myself am a bit sick of the faery winged glitter girls that can't form a proper sentence, let alone really explain why they like her music.
I once asked Dr Wordsmith to run his eye over rec.music.tori-amos, one drink per mistake, solecism, misphrasing, or general lack of clarity he picked up.

The newsgroup is paying his bar bill until October 2023.

Internationally, Janet's "Someone To Call My Lover" holds on for a sixth week, by the skin of her teeth - or, to be exact, less than 1/6th of one percent. She vacates the top slot in Canada, replaced by "Fallin'," the Alicia Keys record that is #2 globally. Janet's also off the top in the foreign language markets, replaced by Jamiroquai's pan-European hit "Little L."

Jamiroquai drop off the UK #1 album, replaced by Macy Gray's sophomore set, "The Id." Spiritualized has the #3 set.

The Fab Fifty	Last	Ps	Last	The Weaver 21
can't get you out of my mind kylie	46	01	1	drops of jupiter train
follow me uncle kraker	1	02	4	stop your cryin spiritualized
starlight the superman lovers	2	03	--	common people pulp
mambo number five bob the builder	3	04	--	daydream in blue i monster
let me blow ya mind eve / gwen stefani	6	05	--	things that go bump in the night allstars
smooth criminal alien ant farm	42	06	2	hanging by a moment lifehouse
turn off the light nelly furtardo	7	07	3	if you're gone matchbox twenty
hey baby dj otzi	4	08	--	sweet baby macy gray
too close blue	8	09	5	cycles frank sinatra
not such an innocent girl victoria beckham	NE	10	--	hunter dido
let's dance five	5	11	--	clint eastwood gorillas
baby come on over samantha mumba	14	12	8	strange little girls tori amos
set you free n'trance	16	13	6	don't dream it's over crowded house
luv me luv me shaggy	NE	14	--	lovestruck madness
take me home sophie ellis bextor	13	15	7	maria blondie
side travis	NE	16	--	me gustas tu manu chao
drops of jupiter train	9	17	--	im a slave for u britney spears
someone to call my lover janet	10	18	13	beautiful day u2
its been awhile staind	15	19	9	adia sarah mclachlan
little l jamiroquai	11	20	--	mambo number five bob the builder
fallin alicia keys	21	21	19	turn off the light nelly furtardo

The Fab 50 300,000 and more sales for Kylie Minogue secures her the number one slot by a long chalk. It's Kylie's first chart-topper since 1990's "Tears On My Pillow," since when she's come close with the sublime "Confide In Me" #2 in 1994 and the ridiculous "Spinning Around" #3 in July 2000. This is a dance groove with added vocals by the diminutive Aussie, and doesn't really excite my grooves.
A big climb for the debut hit by Alien Ant Farm. It is, of course, the loud rocking cover of Michael Jackson's 1988 hit, and somehow manages to add to the original while being a slightly lesser song. No, I don't know how they manage it.
Highest new entry is for Victoria Posh Spice Aadams Beckham, with her first solo single proper. She gave vocal extensions to the Truesteppers' "Out Of Your Mind," which heavily lost the battle of the bands in August last year to Spiller's "Groovejet." Her group may have had ten number one hits; as a solo act, she can but scrape that charmed circle. The dumper beckons already.
Shaggy is on the third single from his album, Travis the second. If you've heard the acts, you know what to expect.

Michael Jackson posts a useful climb, 35-24. Starsailor has yet another classy, angsty, guitar-driven rock tune debut, "Alcoholic" is #33. Former Stone Roses frontman Ian Brown has "F E A R," probably his best tune yet, bow at #40.

The Weaver 21 Highest new hit is a slice of pure pop from the Allstars, a group put together for kids' television, and not quite so credible (or popular) as S Club 7. A belated entry for Macy Gray's first release in over a year, it's been a slow grower, and last week's distractions didn't help. A similar story explains Dido.
Manu Chao has been tearing up the charts around Europe, and an MP3 fell into my lap this weekend. I like it. A lot. Like nothing else out there. New Britney and Bob The Builder secure the future of the plastic singing stars.
The Gorillas and I Monster hits are more recurrent than current.
Old stuff: Pulp was #2 in late spring 95, and still sounds amazingly good when it appears on the radio and television today - which it does a lot. Madness grazed the top 20 in summer 99 with their ode to drinking, which doesn't get much play these days. In fact, it's rare that Madness gets any radio play, which is quite a sad state of affairs.

Imperial beat St Andrews, Lancaster, Exeter, Warwick and the LSE en route to the 96 title. Defending the following year, they lost the opener to St Catherine's Cambridge, came back as high-scoring losers only to lose to Manchester. Last year, Imperial soundly beat Cranfield, Durham, sneaked past Manchester, thrashed Hull and beat St John's Oxford in the final.
De Montfort appeared in 99, beating Portsmouth but falling heavily to Bristol in the second round.

De Montfort features three postgrads, which appears to be cheating slightly. Undergrads might have done better, as they're trailing 115-0 when Paxo belatedly takes the picture bonuses. Are we on for the lowest score ever? Perhaps not; Jo White gets the Leicester institution off the ground, and gets the chance to snarl "You stupid boy!" - a catchphrase from DAD'S ARMY - at Paxo. They finally pass 40 just after the music round, and trail by a mere 110.

This is the beginning of a mini-revival for DM, cutting the gap to 85 after the second picture round. This is as good as it gets, Imperial marching ahead like champions, DM creeping past the century right at the end. The final score: 250-110.

Star of the show is Lloyd Kilford of Imperial, getting 7 starters and 102 points. Captain Darius Fidgett failed to buzz once.

Watching last Saturday's (Sept 15) Millionaire, I noticed something was rather unusual. Part way through, Chris Tarrant announced a "specially extended" show. I knew ITV had pulled the film scheduled to follow Millionaire, and adding time to the quiz seems a reasonable way of plugging the gap. He introduced ten new contestants, made a swift change of suit, and played on.

Only there was a heck of a lot of litter on the floor. The sort of confetti we saw when Judith Keppel won her million last November, and David Edwards just four episodes earlier in April. And then Chris made pointed references to people winning *another* million and the *next* millionaire, just as he'd made on the shows after Judith stormed the tower.

The truth was stranger yet. By the end of the week, this would be the first story in ten days to knock terrorist acts off the front page of any national newspaper.

Major Charles Ingram wants to be a millionaire. Major Charles Ingram wants to be a millionaire really, really badly. But first, he's got to answer fifteen questions from Chris. And, according to press reports this week, he may also have to answer questions from Inspector Knacker, without using any lifelines.

The Major called the phone lines, got on the show, and won Fastest Finger First, as over four hundred people in the UK have done before. To the best of my knowledge, it's rare to have the spouse of a former contestant make the hot seat before - wife Diana took �32,000 just before Easter, and her husband Adrian won a similar amount earlier in the year. Indeed, Diana wrote a book on how to win money through game shows.

But it looked as if Ingram was going to go down well short of his goal, after using all three lifelines to reach �8000. However, he moved on, taking his time, thinking about each answer, mulling over the options before deciding. Eventually, he got the Million Pound Question correct, causing the release of the confetti and much jubilation amongst the audience.

Suspicions at Celador were aroused when the audience, usually as quiet as mice without their vocal cords, started coughing just as Ingram was about to answer questions. These suspicions have prompted Celador to freeze the winning cheque, and hand the matter over to the Metropolitan Police.

According to unconfirmed rumours in the press, and some speculation by your correspondent, one of his two relatives in the audience had a mobile phone silently transmitting the show to an accomplice at home. That person did the research, and communicated the correct answer by text message. The chain was completed by the very low-tech means of coughing.

"ITV's job is to ensure the integrity of the programme. It is a big programme and concerns have to be taken seriously," said a spokesperson on Thursday.

By Friday, Ingram had called a press conference in London. He had given Celador a mid-afternoon deadline to come up with some evidence. When none was released, he confirmed that he would be suing for the money. Ingram claimed he was "innocent" and dismissed allegations that he planted an accomplice in the audience who used a "coughing code" to help him win.

"While I was in the middle of the set I did not register or hear any coughing. I can't say there wasn't coughing going on but I did not use it to help me. I am innocent. I did not cheat."

Solicitor Philip Jones of Reading-based Morgan Cole, said: "Despite being given the opportunity to clarify its position, a letter has today been sent by Celador's solicitors which gives no information on the allegations. In the circumstances, our client has concluded his interests are best served by commencing legal proceedings." Jones added "all legal remedies were being considered", including defamation.

I'm reminded of the time William G Stewart went to court against Trevor Montague, aka Steve Romana. Montague had been on FIFTEEN TO ONE once, and lost. He then re-applied under a different name, breaking the (then) strict rule that show losers couldn't return, came back to the show, and won a Top Of The Finals Board trophy. The deception was spotted thanks to an eagle-eyed viewer of Challenge TV's repeats, and Stewart had his day in court.

The case continues, but if you coughed during answer D earlier, you could be on to something.