You would think translating the days of the week wouldn't be that difficult, but Google Translate fails.

The sad part of it was, however, that I didn't catch it when J sent me a note about this Thursday using Rabu instead of the correct word, Khamis. In my defense, I was expecting her to talk about Thursday in her note; whereas Google, with no context and lots more computing power than my poor, mixed up brain, shouldn't have had a problem.

I've been reading some old comics (early 1940s) and thought I would, like some other blogs out there, share some of my discoveries with you, such as this panel from All-Star Comics issue 1 (June 1940), which occurs after Hawkman reunites Margo with her brother Jan.

from All-Star Comics #1 (June 1940), story and art by "Shelly"

Now, I understand that they are happy to see each other, but that image seems a little beyond most sibling affection. Perhaps Shelly had originally intended the art to describe a husband and wife, and when time to actually add the text, it was changed to brother and sister. Awkward, that.

From the web site of the Royale Chulan hotel in downtown Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

MICE is actually an acronym for "Meetings, Incentives, Conventions, and Events." I think they might want to rethink that particular acronym.

There's a little bit of a dust-up at the moment regarding the man who crashed his plane into an Austin IRS building and how the media and government are covering his action, mainly centered around the belief that because he was an angry white male, he isn't being called a terrorist. While some of the points are valid (as in, if he had been an angry male of Arabic descent named Mohamed, no matter how long he and his family had been citizens or what manifesto he left, people would be trying to connect him to al-Qaeda), there are some salient details that distinguish his act from that committed on 11 September 2001. Some of this boils down to what do we mean when we say "terrorism," and it's no wonder there's some confusion there, because the Bush administration certainly wanted to use the term as broadly as possible to further their agenda.

By its very definition, the idea of terrorism is to cause terror. I believe one of the intended consequences of the 11 September attacks was to make Americans feel less secure, in the same way that people do not feel very secure if they live in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. The intended consequence of the TeePee crasher was to have people pay attention to his written manifesto, not fear that another plane was going to drop from the sky. It seems a safe assumption, even now, that al-Qaeda have the desire and people who would be willing to commit suicide attacks against Americans, especially in the U.S. On the other hand, I very much doubt that there exist too many other Tea Baggers prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice. Note that one act of violence hardly equals terrorism. The reason 11 September had such a profound affect on our psyche, i.e., which terrorized us, was because of its multiple nature (four planes all hijacked on the same morning with an express purpose of causing fear and dismay). The reason why the IRA and PLO were considered a terrorist organizations is becaue of their multiple attacks, etc.

While I group Mr TeePee (I'm not sorry to use this psuedonym for him, by the way, as his name has escaped me, and I do not feel his action makes it worthwhile for me to record his actual name for the limited posterity of even this web site) with the Tea Party "movement," there's a clear distinction between his connection to that movement and those of the 11 September airplane hijackers to al-Qaeda. Some of those differences include the hijackers were financially supported and trained by their group and the group made the decision to make the attack. While I've heard some TeePee supporters show some agreement with the TeePee crasher's manifesto, none of them has been stupid enough to actually show any support for his actions. Not only did al-Qaeda claim to be responsible for 11 September, they have vowed to continue attacks against the U.S.

So, was Mr TeePee a terrorist? No. Neither was Timothy McVeigh, whose action was even more disastrious in loss of life. Are they criminals? Yes, just as the 11 September attackers were criminals, and just as any of the people who aided and abetted them in that act are criminals. Mr TeePee obviously chose his method of suicide in copycat of a terrorist action, and there's some danger that others will, too. But that doesn't make their act itself a terrorist act. Copycat crimes are nothing new.

A final point: based on my reading of Mr TeePee Crasher's manifesto: he thought that his act would actually help galvinize people to do something about the arcane tax laws of the U.S. Unfortunately, I believe that his act has probably set back any progress in that area, at least in the near term, because politicians and tax activists could easily be accused of acting in his interests. On the other hand, all the damage done to the reputation of the U.S. abroad and to our constitutional liberties at home by the Bush administration in reaction to the 11 September attacks was an unintended consequence, likely even unforseen, by al-Qaeda, but one that have to be enjoying tremendously.

(In the interest of discussion and debate, I'm putting a link to a couple of arguments for why he should be considered a terrorist below. One argument hinges on the legal definition of terrorism used by the FBI. My argument above is about the generally accepted use of terrorism in the mass media and society. The legal definition would be used in a court of law for a particular indictement. What we mean when we talk about terrorism, I believe, hinges on truth and consequences, as I've laid out above. The other argument hinges on the idea that if the act is similar to a terrorist act, no matter if the person acted alone or not, it is terrorism. To this I submit that unless we respond out of being terrorized, then it is not. We clearly responded out of fear after 11 September; only time will tell, I guess, about how we respond to this.)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Joseph Stack was technically a terrorist, but... (trueslant.com)
• Jeff Schneider: When is Terrorism not Terrorism? Austin, Joe Stack, and Why Semantics Matter (huffingtonpost.com)

I'm not a big fan of jazz. I've never understood the appeal of Miles Davis, John Coltrane, and Charles Mingus. I've tried, lord how I've tried, but with the exception of Take Five, most jazz albums leave me cold. Then again, maybe Davis and Coltrane and Mingus are just a variety of jazz that I don't care for. Is "swing" jazz, because I like swing, in both its original and retro versions, from Louis Jordan and _The Wildest_ to Big Bad Voodoo Daddy and The Squirrel Nut Zippers. And then there's Steely Dan, who aren't swing, and they're not Miles Davis, but while they are undeniably rock and pop in some kind of combination, they also contain some kind of jazz influence.

Possibly it's the level of allowed improvization--from my brief time playing in a swing band in high school, I understand the structure of a swing song and that at any one time, only one instrument--two at the very most--are engaged in improv, while the rest are pretty constrained to follow an agreed upon script. Rock follows that (with the exception of, say, King Crimson's second period), for the most part, even such that it became a 1980's joke (I'll never forget the Styx video--for some entirely forgetable song--but which had the pop-up note "obligatory solo" at the 2:45 mark ). When rock doesn't follow this, such as the jam bands Phish and Dave Matthews, I get easily bored. Steely Dan play rule-following jazz. Perhaps the songs were originally conceived in jam sessions, but when they get recorded, it's pretty obvious everyone knows just what's going down and where.

Kamakiriad is not a Steely Dan album, but that's in name only. Everything else about this album--its style, vocal sound, production quality, level of expertise--not only screams Steely Dan, but is basically on the same trend line that Aja was leading to, more so than even Donald Fagen's first solo album, The Nightfly, which actually had some departures from the Steely Dan sound. This is smooth stuff, and a little David Sanborn saxophone wouldn't be out-of-place here. If anything, it's all a little too smooth, and doesn't strain itself much. All of the songs are pleasing, with no note out of place, a very tight horn and rhythm section, and a chorus of sweet-voiced background singers. Only Donald Fagen's own vocal delivery, with its somewhat limited range and wispy nasality, is a unique sound.

So why is this one of my favorite albums? I'm not entirely sure upon listening to it again in its entirety. I can tell you that I hate none of these songs, but if you had asked me before putting this song in the player to review if I could name any of the tracks, as a favorite or not, I would have been hard-pressed. "Springtime," the funkiest track, is one of the many I've rated five stars. The other tracks I've rated five star include "Trans-Island Skyway," "Countermoon," "Springtime," and "Tomorrow's Girls." Only one track was rated less than four stars, "On the Dunes." Listening to it all together, though, and I'm struck by just how much of a snoozer it is. I'm tempted to rate some of the songs down just on this realization.

Look Sharp! contains some of the cleverest songs from the 1970s, one of which was a huge radio hit. Jackson emerged just as Elvis Costello and Graham Parker did, both incredibly clever and caustic songwriters in their own right, and the three quickly became known as the angry young men of the rock scene. Some people today label and group them with punk, but that disregards that all three were accomplished musicians, Joe Jackson most of all, as he had even studied music at university. What more they did have in common was spending the 70s touring England's pub scene, and if one had to specify a subgenre for them, pub-rock would do in a pinch, along with Brinsley Schwarz, Nick Lowe, Dave Edmunds, and the too short-lived Rockpile.

The hit, which overshadows the album and Jackson's entire career until he hit big again with Night and Day, is of course "Is She Really Going Out With Him?" It unfortunately suffers from two things: it has been overplayed by classic rock radio everywhere and, while very clever, it is a bit of an extended joke where the punchline loses its impact with repetition. The music, with it's simple bass'n'drums loping verse and full band chorus, stays fresh, as does Jackson's sneer-cum-whine vocal delivery (especially in the classic insult line, "they say that looks don't count for much and there goes your proof"). The other thing that strikes me upon listening to it for yet another time is how clean the recording is--in fact this entire record is a prime example of how giving the instruments quietness around them emphasizes them so much better than just turning everything up to ten as they do nowadays. That said, there are exceptions. "Throw It Away" and "(Do the) Instant Mash" are as close as this album gets to punk and both fill the channel with some pretty high octane playing.

Take the hit away and this still would have been a great album. None of the songs is a clunker that begs for the skip button. Several of them are all-time favorites of mine. "Fools in Love" is really a companion piece to the hit, and holds up better with time for me. It has the same loping, near reggae feeling, verse and big bold chorus with more vitriolic vocals. It is also somewhat creepy. In this, as well as in "Pretty Girls," Jackson seems to have a problem with this whole dating/love business--an honest portrait of the conflicting emotions that surround a 20-or-so-year-old.

What's most surprising, however, given Jackson's later career and claim-to-fame as one if the few rock pianists (can you name more than five? Jerry Lee Lewis, Elton John, Billy Joel, Bruce Hornsby, and Ben Folds. I know more, but most of them are in bands rather than solo artists, and I play piano, so it's something of interest to me) is the relative absence of piano on this recording. It's there, but definitely not as a main instrument--almost as if Jackson had a problem playing and singing at the same time when this was recorded since when you notice the piano it's in the solos.

This is my favorite Jackson album, but only because every song here is a winner. I actually prefer to listen these days to Jumpin' Jive or Beat Crazy, neither of which did very well for him when they were released.

A selection of a few items that came across my feedreader in the last couple of weeks:

• This snow shovel looks like it would have been perfect for the very long driveway that we used to have in Maryland. Since DC just got some more of that white stuff dumped on them, I wanted to alert my friends there to this possible solution. In other news, it's still summer in Malaysia.


• What's the real cost of the sugar water that you are drinking? Because of the small sums involved, people miss the cost increases that they would scream about for things that cost more, even though you likely spend more on soda in a given period. It also underscores the hypocrisy of the soda companies who screamed about the proposed tax of 1 cent per soda to help combat the rise of obesity in the U.S.


• As someone who seems to be untangling my iPhone earbuds every time I take them out of my pocket, I find this zipper design to be absolute genius, especially with the added feature that the zip also contains separate volume controls. Now, there's some innovative thinking for you.


• In a similar inspired-design vein, check out this travel plug that folds up so you don't poke holes in your bag. I need one of these, like, immediately.
  
• My buddy Stainless is doing a great series on the Leadership Secrets of Fictional Characters. While I'm not a necessarily a fan of the fiction that he's pulling this from, what he's quoting and his analysis of it is spot on. I'll be sad when this little series ends.


• Jonathan Carroll, one of my favorite writers, reproduces this list of 'Rules' from Esquire. I like a lot of these, including "The only thing worse than words ending in 'ly' are words ending in 'ize.'"


• Bruce Sterling, another of my favorite writers, points out this inspired graphic depicting what China censors. I should do something similar for Malaysia, although it would have to be a tag cloud on what the local newspapers deem is important news (which, as J put it recently on Facebook, combines the worst part of the Monica Lewinsky and BoA scandals).


• You want indignation? Here's a rant on the insane amount of money we spend on the military. We can debate about whether or not this is actually making the U.S. "secure," but there's no doubt that it's driving the U.S. into bankruptcy.


• An ad that points out that, really, there's only one way to recharge yourself if you're feeling out of energy.

Oh, this is what we should have used for our band name. Or, since he's out of a job, I offer it to Conan O'Brien, in case he wanted to be a rock star.

I don't want to become a curmudgeon (well, no more than I already am) and taking on the role of the Dear Abby for the web set is almost equally appalling, but there's a couple of things regarding using electronic communication that I'd like to address, especially for those of my friends and acquaintances who are only now starting to use this on your computers and cell phones. Note: I was doing computer communication before most of you even owned a computer or cell phone--some of my friends and I were doing it before there were even cell phones. So, I feel like I've got a bit of time invested in this and would like to share some collected experience with you.

First off, the best way to think about online communication is to compare it to something you are more familiar with. The best analogy is to that of a party. Sometimes you go to a party where you don't know that many people. The way you handle yourself online should be the same as you would at such an event. You introduce yourself, you ask about others, and you follow the flow and ebb of the conversation before starting to engage. You don't (or at least you shouldn't) immediately yell out that everyone in the room doesn't know what they hell they are talking about and they are all stupid. It gets you attention, yes; everyone in the room will turn to see who the asshole is, and some of 'em might deign to insult you, but you just made the worst first impression, and a long-term experience doesn't look positive.

To extend this analogy to Facebook, the social site of least resistance as I'm writing this, when you and I agree to be friends, we're inviting each other to our personal parties. Remember that what you comment on my status update, that happens in my party, just as I need to remember that what I say to you is at your party. Some people's parties are huge! They have 500 friends and a network of thousands that could overhear your comment. Some people have very private parties--I have one friend who caps his friends on Facebook at 50 people. The difference between these two sorts of approaches is as night and day between a college kegger and a formal dinner party. It behooves you to know this. Unfortunately, Facebook doesn't make this easy to understand intuitively. That's a technological failing, but one that you have to deal with.

Some people play games at their private parties. That's great. I'm a gameplayer, and I love games. Not everyone does. Luckily, Facebook helps the latter group by giving you the ability to ignore (per game) messages about that particular function. That's like hosting a party and there's a group of your friends over by the side playing Risk while another group is drinking beer and hanging around the bar-be-que. If you go to a party, and all that's happening is games, and you don't want to engage in that, you have the option of leaving. In Facebook lingo, that's when you click the little X next to that friend and remove them from your friend's list. It's not that you don't think he or she is a wonderful acquaintance, just that you're not interested in going to that party. You can always send email to that person--it's like calling them on the phone. Which, by the way, you can do, too.

I'm sure you've seen this: a friend of yours puts a status update up that says something like "If you love your pet snail, repost this on your own status update so everyone knows that you really appreciate your pet snail." You may have even been tempted to copy and post it as your update. Resist the temptation. If you want people to know how much you love Slowpoke, why not write something about how cute Slowpoke is when he's traveling across the lettuce leaf and you turn the leaf 180-degrees, thus mitigating his process. That is, if you really love your pet snail, why don't you "show, don't tell" your friends about that love.

Clicking the "Like" button is like nodding at the party. It's a nice thing to do, because it tells your friend that you were actually able to hear and appreciate the comment over the din of all the other talkers. Also, take the time to comment on your friends' statuses. If all you do is talk and talk at your own party, without engaging people in their parties, you come across either as a celebrity or an egotistical bastard, such terms being not necessarily mutually exclusive. On the other hand, never saying anything at your own party or at others is like being the wallflower. No one hates you, but people wonder why you bothered to show up at all.

Engaging in political or religious discussions at someone's party is very dangerous, but it's a two-way street. If you mention that kind of thing at your party, don't be surprised at your friends mentioning at their party. So, as a host, if you don't want to talk about politics and religion, don't bring it up. And, if you do bring it up, don't be surprised if a friend of yours disagrees with you. The ultimate rudeness is to then tell them that you don't care what they have to say. What kind of host are you. I left a friend's party because of a similar experience. I didn't feel welcome there anymore.

That said, I like having friends at my party who have different opinions from mine. If all I invited were yes men and sycophants to my party, I think it would be a very dull place. That said, if your opinion differs from mine and all you do is insult my position, don't be surprised if I don't invite you back or show you the boot out the back door.

Finally, think about how you project yourself at your party and at others' parties. That is, are you the joker who's always quick with a witty saying and good-natured ribbing? Are you the dour sourpuss who sits in the corner except to say how life sucks every 15 minutes? Are you a well-rounded person who can talk and enjoy everything or do you have only a couple of push-button topics that consume you? Yes, this is online communication, but chances are that you might actually meet up with some of these people outside of Facebook. How you come across online can determine if people invite you to their in-person parties, as well, not to mention whatever replaces Facebook in the future.

I joked with a family member who asked what I was going to read next that I hoped this was going to be a "how to" book. While it could conceivably be followed in some instances, Everyday Drinking is actually a collection of three smaller books that themselves were collections of the newspaper writings on alcohol by Kingsley Amis, more famous as the author of such novels as Lucky Jim and The Green Man, although it is pretty apparent from this book that he was more than familiar with the artistic merits of a couple of cocktails before and, especially, after the work day. This was a good addition to my growing library on bacchanalia, as it fulfills my rigorous requirements of (a) being more than just a recipe book (I have enough of those now, plus there's always the Internet Cocktail Database) and (b) having a strong, personal, opinionated voice. Amis has the latter in spades, as he ranges between saying that drinking is always a subjective enterprise to lambasting the heathens who would mix something with a single-malt scotch (even Drambuie, as in the Rusty Nail, which is better suited to mixing with a blend, in both his and my entirely not-so-humble opinions).

Amis is clear that he's a beer man with a taste for gin, and that while he has some expert and experience with other liquor and wine, that's not where his heart lies. He does pretty well at covering the gamut, still, and as an intermediate wine drinker, I still found plenty to learn from him. These columns are somewhat dated, having been written mainly the in the late 70s and early 80s, as far as I can tell, but given that everything that once was old in cocktails is now new again, that's not so much of a problem. Finally, I was happy to obtain from this at least one new drink that I've quickly grown to enjoy quite a lot: the "Pink Gin," which is simply gin with a couple of dashes of Angostura (or other) bitters (I suggest serving it on the rocks if you don't keep the gin in the freezer as I do). It's a wonderful drink for those for whom adding ever the sight of the vermouth bottle to a martini reduces its dry nature; the bitters actually increases the dry quotient. Marvelous!