Are You Big Game?

"I have suddenly awoken in the midst of this dream but only to the consciousness that I am dreaming and that I have to go on dreaming in order not to be destroyed." -- Nietzsche

The rules of the game are artificial but not arbitrary. We make them up. They could have been different rules, but the rules are what they are for a reason -- it's what made sense.

Winning the game is not important, but it is important to keep it as the goal. There are lots of things that supercede this goal and should be adopted when they come into play, but arbitrarily not following the goal makes the game worse. However, the game is no less worthwhile if the goal is unattainable. Within the game, devote yourself fully.

Is the game over when the winner is determined?

Within the game, the rules are supreme. However, the rules of one game have no effect upon another. What are the rules to the game of making games? Can the game make itself?

What are the unwritten rules of the game? How do people play when they don't know all of the rules?

When the rules are unclear, the players must call upon a judge. The judge is to look at the intent of the rule. But what if the intent was not doccumented, and the rule is perfectly vague?

The spectators of the game may be part of the game.

The game may contain a game. The game may be contained. Two games may cross, but how often is this done?

Players appear to follow a set of rules which dictate how they follow the rules of the game. Is this set of rules part of a game? Or are there rules without a game? Are there games without rules?

Can you change the rules of the game within the game? Or must you move outside?

Violence is bad, mmmmkay?

And now for my weekly political observations, often based on A.P. reports from Salon.

A Pentagon official said an errant U.S. bomb had struck a residential area near Kabul. The precision-guided bomb missed its mark by about a mile, killing up to four civilians and wounding eight, the Pentagon said. U.S. officials said they regret the loss of life. (Actually from CNN.)

Go ahead and say that the U.S. attacks are different than the terrorist attacks because we aren't targeting civilians. Whether we're targeting them or not, we're hitting them. How many accidental civilian casualties are acceptable in return for 5,600 American casualties? Four? 200? 5,600? 10,000?

"Osama is not in Kabul -- he is not living in mud houses of poor people," said another Kabul man, moneychanger Mohammed Wali. "We should not be attacked." -- AP

We're attacking military targets so that, when we send our people closer, they won't be in much danger.

First of all, this is cowardice, not flying a plane into a building. The members of the military have agreed to die should their duty call them to. Afghan civilians haven't. Second, was the attack on the Pentagon justified, since it was a military target, and they only killed civillians coincidentally -- they were just on the plane?

Anthrax. U.S. officials "have freed all other terrorists organizations to do what they can do. America has many enemies, open and secret. They should not focus only on Osama. Then the real culprit will escape and there will be more incidents like this under the name of Osama."

First of all, keep your cool. Don't stockpile anthrax vaccine. Nobody is going to send anthrax to your home mail box. Second, do you really think this is the work of Osama bin-Ladin and al-Qaida? "Well, we just killed 6,000 people. Let's start killing them one at a time! Let's start with the media and Microsoft!" Al-Qaida is much more likely to, say, release a bunch at a press conference featuring a few big wigs, obtain access to a military base and pollute the mess, release it in a crowded area, or something else on a grand scale.

The Taliban are willing to have bin-Laden tried in a third country, but the U.S. refuses to do so.

Timothy McVeigh wasn't tried in Oklahoma City. The U.S. ignored the Yugoslav court finding that Clinton, Albright and others were guilty of war crimes. Just as Nicole Simpson's sister is unfit to be on the O.J. jury, the U.S. has no right to try bin-Ladin itself. If he is, in fact, guilty (and the U.S. deigns to release evidence to that end), a court in, say, Switzerland - or even Pakistan - should have no problem establishing that fact. Will the U.S. give in to requests to turn over Henry Kissinger (how I'm missin' ya) for war crimes? Will they allow him to be tried in Chile, Vietnam, or Cambodia?

Freedom, Liberty, and Safety

Tell your representatives that you don't support giving the FBI increased power to wiretap, read your email (use PGP, anyway), etc. Part of freedom is responsibility not to abuse it. Part of living in a free society is being prepared for people who do abuse it. Support Bill Maher's right to free speech (especially when it's right on the money). Don't trust the TV networks, who have agreed to self-censorship. (Would operatives really not go to the Internet for international news reports to get their secret messages?)

You are not safe now. But you weren't, really, to begin with. The people in the World Trade Center sure weren't.

For believe me! -- the secret of realizing the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment of existence is: to live dangerously! Build your cities on the slopes of Vesuvius! Send your ships out into uncharted seas! Live in conflict with your equals and with yourselves! Be robbers and ravagers as long as you cannot be rulers and owners, you men of knowledge! The time will soon be past when you could be content to live concealed in the woods like timid deer!
-- Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science

Peace, my brothers, and good will.