:: Porkchop Serum ::

:: Thursday, June 19, 2003 ::

Paganism is the SHIT!!

:: sandy 11:56 PM [+] ::
...

OrigamiSausage and BigBerthaFucker: Would you set yourselves alight in protest? What would it take, honestly, before self-immolation becomes the only recourse.

I ask this after two days in which 5 people in Paris burned themselve to protest the mass arrest of MEK (Mujaheddin-e-Khalq) members. MEK or the People's Mujaheddin is an Iranian opposition party who appears to have remained on the EU's list of terrorist groups when ironically the cause they support, the end to theocratic rule in Iran, is shared by the wstern world. The French decided that now, in the wake of anti-regime rotests in Iran that the US and rest of the democratic world praised, was the time to move on MEK. Doesn't make the most sense. Khatami and Khamenei were pleased.

Now, the arrest of a major cell like this may be extremely disheartening to supporters but I can't help that something is missing. It is an act of pure desperation, like the buddhists in vietnam who suicides were considered, "an advertisement of the intolerable gap between morality and the reality of the Diem regime." Was MEK on the verge of a grand victory and was snatched by the jaws of failure at the last second? A recently opened portal was about to bring forth the Demiurge and change the world forever, and the silly frogs slammed the door during their raids. I dunno. Perhaps it was something equally fantastic that was scared off before it could emerge from the shadows.

what would cause you to pour gas on your head and flick the match?

:: sandy 11:46 PM [+] ::
...

Well looky here. I must thank the aggressively homosexual vagrant that found you, spun you about and pushed you back towards Arlington. Sean, please arrange for payment. Old hacksaw blades and jars of cumulonimbus will suffice. Penis fairies and testicle groomers will be diligently preparing for your return, i'm sure. Oh how they've missed your generous tips after marathon ass-hair-plucking sessionw. Enjoy your stay and remember, pretend to be surpised when the A.G.V. tugs on your leash. Somehow a handful of placebo made it into his medication vial... look.. he picks one. Do you feel lucky, punk? Well? Do ya?


"NEED TO BE SEEN DOING SOMETHING"..

Seen by whom exactly? The American people? I can't image they give a little pebbly shit about what goes on in Burma. And to what end? We, as the United States, bastion of democracy, would be expected to play a central role in resolving the Burma situation. (and by the looks of it, we're planning some tough measures ) The US doesnt have any other choice BUT to do something.

:: sandy 10:53 PM [+] ::
...

I believe blogger is the term used most frequently, and welcome, you lasy asspirate. I can't say that this will be a true three-man-blog as Monsignor Dickwad wakes from his blog slumber quite irregularly.


I can't help but be reminded of the senario pro-gun lobbyists use when people talk of gun control: Limiting the ability of law-abiding citizens to own firearms results in those that don't follow the law are the citizens who are left armed. What good are sanctions, which go through official channels for funding or goods, when the regimes being targeted are more than willing to go "unofficial" to obtain what they need. But like my uncle stated, "they are the goto option when one feels one must DO SOMETHING". Frustrating.

:: sandy 4:00 PM [+] ::
...

I had some questions about shit, so I asked my uncle. Here are my questions and his responses. Might be boring to some, but I find it fascinating:

Sandy: As I understand them, sanctions are designed as a way for other nation-states to place economic pressure on another nation-state as punishment for doing something wrong. What is the desired sequence of events from the point of view of the sanctioner(s)? Has that sequence ever played out as desired? Why are economic sanctions the goto diplomatic option in cases like Burma, for instance?

Also, what is the significance of ASEAN getting involved in the Burma situation? I was reading somewhere that ASEAN traditionally stays clear of meddling in each other's internal affairs.


Uncle Skip: sanctions - they are the go-to option when one feels one must DO SOMETHING. in 1997, the u.s.g. adopted sanctions banning any new u.s. investment in burma. but not doing anything about existing investment (unocal has a huge gas pipeline investment, and lots of political clout). the idea was to "punish" the burmese regime by denying it new u.s. investment. hard to see how that really punished them; i'm not aware there was any contemplated new investment out there. but it made everyone feel good. now they are contemplating what to do to burma to show displeasure over the arrest of aung san suu kyi. one hardy perennial proposal is to slap sanctions on burmese textiles, meaning the factories that produce for the u.s. market would suffer. again, hard to see how that would hard the regime, although it would deny some hard currency earnings. the main people who would be hurt would be the workers, largely women, who earn a decent living in those factories. but what else to do? madeleine albright once famously commented on why she supported sanctions against burma but not china, "because burma isn't china." sometimes this business can make you cynical.

have sanctions ever worked? south africa was sanctioned for years; some believe that helped end apartheid. iraq was sanctioned for years, but ultimately we had to go in and kick their ass. it's hard to measure. but you are right; it is the "go to" option. of course, even if the sanctions don't work, there is the moral argument of why should we allow our companies to have anything to do with bastard regimes. we cut off military training for indonesia years ago to "punish" them for east timor atrocities and all we got was a generation of military officers who have never travelled and don't have a clue about civilian control of the military or respect for human rights. (we finally got the training restored this past january, and now congress is thinking about taking it away again because they are unhappy about the as-yet unsolved murder of two u.s. schoolteachers in papua last year, where many believe it was rogue elements of the local military there that did it.) i say that you should INCREASE funding for military training in countries where the military has human rights problems. cutting it off only denies us access to the returned trainees for life, and no opportunity to brainwash them while they are studying in the u.s. but it is the only "tool" we have to club them over the head with.ASEAN - in your other e-mail you asked how significant it was that ASEAN is considering what to do about burma, because of their traditional posture of "non-interference" in member states' domestic affairs. these clowns are setting new standards in ineptitude. back in the mid 90s, when the original ASEANs (thai, indon, phil, malay, sing, brunei) were doing so well economically, they decided to expand the roup to bring in the other four southeast asian countries (viet, cambo, lao and burma) and realize their historic dream of uniting southeast asia. we, among others, warned them that these other four were largely basket cases economically, politically, socially, etc., and would thus not integrate well with the more modern economies and societies of the other six, and cautioned against moving too quickly. we especially cautioned against bringing burma in, with its reprehensible human rights record. we said it would be rewarding them. the know-it-all ASEANs assured us they would be setting a good example for burma, and burma would see the benefits of opening up by virtue of its interaction with the other ASEANs. and today, (adopt nelson muntz laugh here) HA-ha! So now ASEAN is having its annual meeting (where the ten foreign ministers annually pose together, wearing horrible batik shirts and elaborately shaking hands all togther in a line while self-consciously smiling and laughing like idiots; every YEAR they take that fucking picture!) and discussing what to do about burma. many of them propose ignoring the whole situation (singapore, natch), on the premise that ASEAN never gets involved in member states' "internal affairs," but others (thai, phil -- the most democratic of them all) are saying ASEAN should speak out. i even got the indonesian foreign minister to say IN PUBLIC that burma should release suu kyi. and powell arrives in 24 hours in phnom penh to join the talks (the u.s. is one of a dozen or so "dialogue partners" of ASEAN) and he will be loaded for bear. should be interesting what the craven ASEANs end up doing. stay tuned.

signed,

the polar opposite

:: sandy 12:25 AM [+] ::
...