Monday, September 24 2001

From the Soundtrack Effect department :

The mere declaration of "natural frontiers", however, did not imply that French arms would be confined within them. On the contrary, as long as they were threatened by coalitions of kings, or (as the propaganda decree now authorized) as long as they were summoned by peoples groaning under the yoke of despotism, the French would feel free to take the fight to the enemy, wherever he was. Nor did the means of this offensive have to remain orthodox. The ci-devant Marquis de Bry offered to found what was, in effect, the first organization of international terrorism, the Tyrannicides -- twelve hundred committed freedom fighters despatched [sic] to assassinate kings and commanders of foreign armies wherever they could be nailed down. It was, indeed, as Goethe warned, a new moment in the history of the world.

-- Simon Schama, Citizens.

meta

Dave Winer : "It would not surprise me if we dropped the first nukes

since WWII on Iraq this week. ... it will send a message to our so-called allies that the "with us or against us" position has teeth." I think this qualifies as an understatement. What exactly is the message you're trying to send, Dave? That America is a nation of short-sighted thugs? Shame. Update - Fair enough. Your language was ambiguous and lent itself to a particular interpretation, but I will happily stand corrected. Even if it's not personal, though, the question remains. What kind of message does the United States send by using nuclear weapons as a means of persuading not just its enemies but also its allies?

meta

Michael Kinsey : "Furthermore, under the theory of MAD, we leave ourselves vulnerable in certain ways not because we have no choice,

and not because we've agreed to do so, and not because protecting ourselves might upset the Europeans, but because it is in our own unilateral self-interest. Specifically, it is important to be vulnerable to a "second strike"—that is, a retaliatory strike by an arsenal crippled by your potential "first strike." Why? Because you don't want anybody with nukes pointed at you to think they have to use 'em or lose 'em. As long as they can rain cataclysmic damage on us by striking second, they have no more incentive than we do to strike first."

meta

The dict-ified dictionary.com word of the day is amicable

| source : web1913 | Amicable \Am"i*ca*ble\, a. [L. amicabilis, fr. amicus friend, fr. amare to love. See {Amiable}.] Friendly; proceeding from, or exhibiting, friendliness; after the manner of friends; peaceable; as, an amicable disposition, or arrangement. That which was most remarkable in this contest was . . . the amicable manner in which it was managed. --Prideoux. {Amicable action} (Law.), an action commenced and prosecuted by amicable consent of the parties, for the purpose of obtaining a decision of the court on some matter of law involved in it. --Bouvier. --Burrill. {Amicable numbers} (Math.), two numbers, each of which is equal to the sum of all the aliquot parts of the other. Syn: Friendly; peaceable; kind; harmonious. Usage: {Amicable}, {Friendly}. Neither of these words denotes any great warmth of affection, since friendly has by no means the same strength as its noun friendship. It does, however, imply something of real cordiality; while amicable supposes very little more than that the parties referred to are not disposed to quarrel. Hence, we speak of amicable relations between two countries, an amicable adjustment of difficulties. ``Those who entertain friendly feelings toward each other can live amicably together.'' | source : wn | amicable adj : characterized by friendship and good will [ant: {hostile}]

meta