Eff's Rambles (Archive)


In fairness, I should have said that a stated reason, later on, for going to war against Iraq was to "liberate" the Iraqi people.

I consider the title, "a war against the regime and not the state" a semantic waste of my time.

Maybe more on that later, or another day.

I do not know about anyone else, but I am uncomfortable with compliments. Being that I am obsessive compulsive, insecure and have adequacy issues, high remarks about my intelligence and looks, even modest to minor ones, make me uncomfortable. I start to wonder if people are easily impressed, need glasses, are mocking me; it just seems easier to deal with some put downs. A reason why it may be easier is not wanting to appear as vain. If you readily agree with a positive remark, you could look like you are self-absorbed. But how you react to an insult is defended to an extent by dignity. There is always modesty.

Here in the US, there is a media circus over the Kobe Bryant case. I do not know who is telling the truth. But what I do believe is that, of what little I've heard, the behavior of people connected with the case has been terrible.

Rumours abound.

Are friends on either side leaking things at the request of the accuser and accused?

Are the friends acting independently?

Are they friends?

One thing is certain, Kobe had sex with the accuser (he should not have). But this story, the type of which I would usually ignore, has made me rethink, not so much reconsider, an issue.

I have always disliked false accusations. My feeling is that such lying merits a penalty of great extremes because they can ruin lives. Perhaps sexistly, the main kind I would think of is a charge of rape against a man (whatever the actual charge against Kobe is irrelevant to my coming contention). Well, I still hold that few, but my empathy has grown more for the women in those situations, though I do not know if their claims are true in a given and unresolved case. What brought it about is the terrible treatment the accuser is getting. Her character is attacked constantly. Her friends seem to be against her or inept about what they are doing. But worst of all is how some people defending Kobe cannot see how they are being influenced by prejudice and false logic.

She should have known better than to go into the room of a celebrity. And she probably did.

Whatever it is she "should" have expected, she is equally right to expect a reasonable level of behavior from those she is with. Being aware of something does not mean ones actions are with the intent to benefit from that awareness. A quick example is of two gold prospectors. One of them is in a dangerous situation, the other makes a sincere effort to save him, but fails. The deceased one had a newly found claim, of which the other knew of. Although foul play is not an absurd suspicion, it is prejudice that dismisses the integrity of the living prospector and puts him beyond the level of suspect into being guilty. What seems to matter is not the person, but the knowledge. That single fact is enough to convict a man in the minds of some people. Who he is no longer matters. Knowledge by itself is not proof. The accuser's dignity is assaulted with stories and rumours about her mental state and sexual history.

If the accuser should be protected, why not the accused?

It's not an easy question to answer. ideally, no one would know of the identity of the accused and his accuser. However, I believe that it is unrealistic to expect that the identity of the accused can remain secret, and this becomes less so when he is famous. This may be an unfortunate circumstance, but the public is not the law. It is not fair for anyone to disparage the accuser based on what he sees as hypocrisy in the law. And mistreated she has been.


According to at least one person I walked by twice (once was to return home) I am cute, fine and pretty, maybe, very pretty. It must be true, because it was said by an 8-11 year old girl.

I don't know if I'm good looking, but I do know I need to walk by older people if I am.

This also happened a few years ago. Though they were teens.

Another lady, a neighbor, mentioned several times that she though my hair was pretty, it hadn't been cut in months. I let her borrow a book. Said she'd return it by the end of last week, but I'd told her she could keep it longer. Hope she's enjoying it. It's the Prince, btw.

It feels creepy. Flattering, but creepy.

I'll stay inside as much as I can. Sooner or later adults wil pelt me like I'm quasimodo while 9 year olds call me cute.


I'm rambling about my looks. I'm so sad.


I wish I could remember things and had patience, then I might try to do something with the html on this page.

Well, one of the reasons for the war, at least later, and morally, was to liberate the Iraqi people. Few doubt they lived poorly under Saddam, abuse is abuse regardless of the infrastructure the madman perpetrating the abuse provided. Even the argument of inconsitency rings hollow to me. Is it consitency or just agreement the critics want? The inherent problem with arguments have always been the lack of a viable alternative. So the questions are, did the coalition do the right thing and was there a realistic alternative? Going by my impression of one perspective, it would seem no.

Here are the problem as I understand them:

Religion, nationalism and the pride inherent in the followers of both make for a dangerous combination. It's made worse by poor conditions and dissapointment over unmet expectations.

But what is the solution?

What are the alternative?

One could probably refer to dozens of non-violence advocating websites, journals and leaflets and get answers, some of which may be highly intelligent and pragmatic. But for all the aftermath of chaos and terrible destruction before hand, the advantage of war and victory therefrom is its potential level of great control. I am not putting war before diplomacy, but without complete control, it makes it harder to assure the improvement of a bad situation. Diplomacy seeks cessation through negotiation. It's best when aggessors cede control. But how likely that is without the threat or display of force is probably low when they believe they have a chance, or are determined to fight until the end. When they are allowed to maintain control, they still hang like leeches on the minds of the peoples of regions they're, putting the people in constant fear of what items may have been slipped past the watch of the monitors. Leaving some regions to their own devices seems to net nothing impressive. War should be a last resort, but still, when successful, control goes to that of the liberators. The tyrants becomes a nussiance more than a great threat because of the loss of their authority. But a major problem in regions like that of the Middle East seems to be the pride of its peoples. When under the yolk of evil, one can understand why there are expressions of hate against them, but at times these expressions stem from pride, not oppression, and this begs the question, "who else was going to do it?" Was Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt? Were any of them about to stand up and say no more? In a culture that seems to want to scratch its backs and keep silent in return for silence, and with the neighboring continents arguing for diplomacy and caution, how realistic is liberation? Is there any obligation to even try to liberate people? How long should diplomacy be given? Pride is not always a bad thing, but maybe this time it may ruin what may be the best chance for something better. Is avenging of offenses more important than trying to improve the lives of that of your neighbors or yourself? If one truly believe the US is evil, what can I say to change his mind? I do not think I will say anything. But if one is not certain, his attempts to force the coalition to leave is arguably selfish. Does brotherhood really justify the suffering of some of those brothers until one brother stands up and ends it? Do they believe some of their brothers could do it alone?

Continue your attacks and the coalition may leave, and in its place may be who you want. But the same people may suffer, or a new group may be targetted. Is this what you want? I hope not. You have to be realistic if you truly care about people, not strict religious adherence and nationalism. If you cannot say that you would have freed them, or that they could have done it by themselves, than are you right to attempt to force out those who have done what you were failing to do?

Pride cometh befoe the fall.


Seems I can't add links in my posts.

Interesting information about coat of arms.


Online dictionary at www.Answers.com

Concise information in one click