Shell shocks

I’ve been reading Volume 1 of The Paris Review Interviews. The one with Kurt Vonnegut is wonderful. Sample:

Paris Review: You were an infantry battalion scout in the war?
Kurt: Yes, but I took my basic training on the 240-mm howitzer.

PR: A rather large weapon.
Kurt: The largest mobile fieldpiece in the army at that time. This weapon came in six pieces, each piece dragged wallowingly by a Caterpillar tractor. Whenever we were told to fire it, we had to build it first. We practiclly had to invent it. We lowered one piece on top of another, using cranes and jacks. The shell itself was about nine and a half inches in diameter and weighed three hundred pounds. We constructed a miniature railway which would allow us to deliver the shell from the ground to the breech, which was about eight feet above grade. The breechblock was like the door on the vault of a savings and load association in Peru, Indiana, say.

PR: It must have been a thrill to fire such a weapon.
Kurt: Not really. We would put the shell in there, and then we would throw in bags of very slow and patient explosives. They were damp dog biscuits, I think. We would close the breech, and then trip a hammer which hit a fulminate of mercury percussion cap, which spit fire at the damp dog biscuits. The main idea, I think, was to generate steam. After a while we would hear these cooking sounds. It was a lot like cooking a turkey. In utter safety, I think, we could have opened the breechblock from time to time, and basted the shell. Eventually, though, the howitzer always got restless. And finally it would heave back on its recoil mechanism, and it would have to expectorate the shell. The shell would come floating out like the Goodyear blimp. If we had had a stepladder, we could have painted “Fuck Hitler” on the shell as it left the gun. Helicopters could have taken after it and shot it down.

How to deal with a British bank

Dear Sir,

I am writing to thank you for bouncing my cheque with which I endeavored to pay my plumber last month.

By my calculations, three ‘nanoseconds’ must have elapsed between his presenting the cheque and the arrival in my account of the funds needed to honour it. I refer, of course, to the automatic monthly deposit of my Pension, an arrangement which, I admit, has been in place for only eight years. You are to be commended for seizing that brief window of opportunity, and also for debiting my account £30 by way of penalty for the inconvenience caused to your bank.

My thankfulness springs from the manner in which this incident has caused me to rethink my errant financial ways.

I noticed that whereas I personally attend to your telephone calls and letters, when I try to contact you, I am confronted by the impersonal, overcharging, pre-recorded, faceless entity which your bank has become.

From now on, I, like you, choose only to deal with a flesh-and-blood person. My mortgage and loan payments will therefore and hereafter no longer be automatic, but will arrive at your bank by cheque, addressed personally and confidentially to an employee at your bank whom you must nominate.

Be aware that it is an offense under the Postal Act for any other person to open such an envelope. Please find attached an Application Contact Status which I require your chosen employee to complete.

I am sorry it runs to eight pages, but in order that I know as much about him or her as your bank knows about me, there is no alternative.

Please note that all copies of his or her medical history must be countersigned by a Solicitor, and the mandatory details of his/her financial situation (income, debts, assets and liabilities) must be accompanied by documented proof.

In due course, I will issue your employee with a PIN number which he/she must quote in dealings with me.

I regret that it cannot be shorter than 28 digits but, again, I have modeled it on the number of button presses required of me to access my account balance on your phone bank service.

As they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Let me level the playing field even further. When you call me, press buttons as follows:

1– To make an appointment to see me.
2– To query a missing payment.
3– To transfer the call to my living room in case I am there.
4– To transfer the call to my bedroom in case I am sleeping.
5– To transfer the call to my toilet in case I am attending to nature.
6– To transfer the call to my mobile phone if I am not at home.
7– To leave a message on my computer (a password to access my computer is required. A password will be communicated to you at a later date to the Authorized Contact.)
8– To return to the main menu and to listen to options 1 through 8
9– To make a general complaint or inquiry, the contact will then be put on hold, pending the attention of my automated answering service.

While this may, on occasion, involve a lengthy wait, uplifting music will play for the duration of the call.

Regrettably, but again following your example, I must also levy an establishment fee to cover the setting up of this new arrangement.

May I wish you a happy, if ever so slightly less prosperous, New Year.

Your Humble Client

Thanks to Neville Stack for the text.

Irony

There’s a remarkable photograph on Flickr of a black policeman and a white Klu Klux Klansman. The blurb says that the policeman was:

protecting this fine upstanding member of the community during a KKK rally as protestors were closing in on them in 1983. To protect and serve. You don’t necessarily get to pick who you have to protect sometimes.

Microsoft: recruitment news

Microsoft has hired Jupiter Research analyst Michael Gartenberg. His job title? Why “Enthusiast Evangelist”, of course.

It reminds me of Apple in the good old days when the prevailing Silicon Valley joke was:

Q. What’s the difference between Apple Computer and the Boy Scouts?
A. The Boy Scouts have adult supervision.

Apple had job titles like “Evangelist” then. Now they just have the Supreme Evangelist.

White House news

At least one US reporter (CNN’s Ed Henry) is behaving like a real journalist — by nagging away at the Bush Administration’s claim that the government of Iran is explicitly involved in supplying arms to insurgents in Iraq. Pity the US media didn’t do the same over the assertions that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks…

Diffusion

I hate using flash but sometimes it’s the only way of getting pictures. Like most DSLRs, my Nikon D70 has a pop-up flash and it produces the kind of horrible washed-out images one comes to expect from such lighting. The solution (I naively thought) was obvious: put my trusty Nikon Speedlight atop the D70 and use it in bounce mode. And then I discover that the fiends in Nikon have arranged things so that my analog flashgun won’t work with their digital cameras. Worse: a digital-compatible Speedlight costs an arm and a leg, or at any rate £224.35 inc. VAT.

Enter the LumiQuest Softscreen — a cheap gizmo made in China.

It fits on the top of the camera like this:

and gives quite reasonable results.

It’s not pretty, but what do you expect for less than £10? I got if from Warehouse Express.

Our enemy’s enemy is our friend. Except when he’s our enemy.

Lovely observant note by Dave Winer…

I watched yesterday’s Bush press conference. There’s absolutely no doubt that he’s selling war with Iran. And this morning, I saw CNN help him with the pitch.

According to CNN, our sometime enemy in Iraq, radical Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, may now be in Iran. He may not be there, but it’s possible that he’s there. Right now. That was the news, it was a headline, scoop-level story. We’re not sure he’s there, but he could be. That’s news? Eh.

They also said, but didn’t emphasize, that if he were in Iran this wouldn’t be anything new, he’s often in Iran.

He’s also part of the coalition that forms the government of Iraq, the one that we’re supporting, the one that we’re funding, and arming. But this time, today, they didn’t mention that he’s our friend in Iraq, because today he’s being portrayed as our enemy in Iraq. But given that he’s part of the government of Iraq, him being in Iran is like Ted Kennedy being in Mexico. It’s conceivable that al-Sadr has legitimate business in Iran. But it’s hard for us to conceive of that, supposedly, because the picture that’s being painted is that Iran is the country that’s killing our soldiers. And we’re supposed to conclude, of course, that al-Sadr, being in Iran (if he actually is) is more evidence of that. They don’t say it, but we’re left wondering why this is news. If he isn’t there plotting the deaths of more Americans, exactly why is he in Iran? (Assuming he is.) Clearly he’s up to no good.

In other words, they’re just moving around words to make it sound like something new and dangerous is happening, when in fact nothing new is happening, and if it is dangerous, it is something that in the past, the same people have asked us to overlook the danger in.

One more thing — in the Bush press conference, not only haven’t the reporters asked Bush to explain who the enemy is, they also talk about the enemy themselves, although if pressed, I doubt if any of them could explain exactly who the enemy is. Maybe they should do a Frontline special explaining the complicity of the professional journalists in U.S. propoganda.

Summary: One day al-Sadr is the enemy and another day he is our ally.

What could “winning” in Iraq possibly mean?

Problem: We have no clue who we’re fighting.