N. D. Wolfwood

Links I Love:
www.michaelkelly.fsnet.co.uk Extremely funny writer. the "slash fic" about wrapping Roy Orbison in clingfilm is not to be missed.
www.weebl.jolt.co.uk Weebl, Bob, Wee Bull, and Chris the Ninja Pirate.
www.sgtstryker.com Good ol' military and news commentary.
www.conversatron.com Ask a question, get an answer from one of thousands of pop culture icons! It's more fun than it sounds.
www.achewood.com A web comic largely about a thong-wearing cat and a five year old river otter, but other live stuffed animals also appear.

wooo! dinner parties ROCK. 8 hours of preparation for 40 minutes of shoveling food down throats, but what the hell--it was wonderful.

excerpt from Tractate Z'vuv (flies):

Rabbi Yosi ben David said, "the correct b'rakhah upon swatting a fly is 'May all Thy enemies perish as such, O Lord.' It is important to swat flies, as it is written, 'thou shalt remember always the sin of Amalek." Flies steal from picnics as Amalek stole from the supply train of Israel, so it is valid to fulfill the commandment to remember the sin of Amalek by killing flies.
As Moshe spoke when the Ark was taken up and put down, so must one speak when taking up a flyswatter, if there is intent to swat a fly: "Arise O Lord, and let thine enemies be scattered; let them who fear the Lord flee from before Him." When the flyswatter is released from the hand, one says, "Return, O Lord, to the myriads of Isra'el."
Rabbi Ya'el bat Sarah said, "when one swats a fly, one must use the right hand and lift the swatter, as it is written, 'The Lord's right hand reigns on high.'" Rabbi Yosi ben David concurred and added that if one holds the swatter in one's left hand, it is forbidden to lift the swatter more than a cubit above the surface the fly is on, and one must swat at an angle, as it is written, 'their left hands deal deceitfully with me.'"
If one has intent to swat a fly, and indeed swats, and the fly is unharmed, or it is not known if the fly has been killed, it is as if one has failed to kill an Amalekite, and the b'rakhah must be spoken aloud "Blessed are you O Lord our G-d, who provides atonement for unintentional sin."
Rabbi Ya'el said, "Behold how good and how pleasant it is for soldiers to fulfill mitzvot and make b'rakhot in unity, with a glass of wine!"

Almost time for the Great Sukkot John Cusack Binge! I've been cheating unintentionally though--watched City Hall and Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil--neither one grabbed me.

The following was posted by Cadesama: Actually, I'm not anti-War-In-Iraq - I'm a fence sitter. I agree that Saddam by and large did appear to be a danger to his own people, if not necessarily to the international community. America has stood by many times in the past and allowed dictators to slaughter their own people, most notably when we avoided World War II, but probably more egregiously when we ignored and continue to ignore the various upsets, revolutions, and genocides in Africa. And this makes me feel horrible to be an American, because we so often claim to be a protector and a righteous nation, yet we allow these things to take place.
But do we have the right, or even the means, to police the world? I don't know. Additionally, I don't trust the motivations of our current administration.

My response:

I agree that we've committed egregious sins in ignoring many things around the world. But there are always those who take an isolationist stance and those who want to jump with both feet into the smallest fracas. There's a happy medium somewhere. For example, we were going to head into Liberia, but we held off--and they signed their own treaty. On the flip side, we could've saved 10 million people from Hitler's camps, and we acted too late, but every administration has its own ideas and its own collective personality, and will perceive world affairs very differently. Clinton allowed terrorism to go unanswered, and we paid dearly for it on 9/11. Bush blew the holy hell out of Afghanistan, which may or may not have been the proper first step, but at least it was something.
America is just one big collective human, with the foibles and strengths of one.
We do the best we are able to do with the shrunken American military, and we're still the ones who are *active*--Britain came along, but you didn't see Niger or France leading the push to kick Saddam out. America is the most active country in the world for assuring human rights, and we are a benevolent policeman.
The basic concept that underlies our laissez-faire attitude:
Revolution MUST come from within. When people got pissed enough at Britain in the 1770s, Americans made their own change. Freedom is not valued unless the people have won it themselves.
America wouldn't have beaten Britain without the French, so we have no problem giving assistance where it is needed. But just like a policeman doesn't burst into your house every time you have a minor argument with your family, the US doesn't have the manpower or the money to quell every problem in the world, nor do we have the right to burst in at random where we are not wanted. When, however, the situation has degenerated to a point at which the people cannot control their own situation--as I believe it had in Iraq--then we have a moral obligation to start the ball rolling.
And of that, I believe we do a pretty good job.