Monday, April 21

Saliva Boarded

Haven't posted anything lately, so I am cross posting this from my personal blog. I know that there has been a lot going on in the world recently, but honestly nothing has really inspired me to do anything more than make incredibly astute concise observations (okay, let's be honest, snarky comments) on Twitter. You can find me there @tank_demon.

So, what has influenced me to write when MH370, the Blade Runner Trial, Bundy Ranch, Chelsea's Womb, Easter and the Purple Wedding weren't able to?

Would you believe that there is a connection between snoring and water boarding? It is a very personal connection, but there is a definite connection.

I am snorer, like Captain Spaulding the African explorer. Apparently I shake the walls while I sleep. I make sounds that scare small children and attract lovesick moose. My snoring has influenced roommates to find other accommodations (true story.) I am told that it is not sleep apnea, though I have never had a sleep study done to verify this one way or the other. When I last requested a sleep study, the request was denied because, other than snoring loud enough to be used as a foghorn, there were no other indicators of sleep apnea (not overweight, no high blood pressure, decent general fitness.)

Honestly, snoring never bothered me. It sure as hell bothered my wife, and whatever poor bastards had to share a tent with me during field exercises, but being that I was already sleeping soundly by the time I started emitting sounds, my snoring was somebody else's problem. Yes, there was the occasional sore throat in the morning, but physically the worst that happened was that I would inexplicably wake up in the middle of the night. I sometimes thought that was the result of snoring loud enough that the noise of it would wake me, though my wife has told me I have times during the night when I would just stop breathing altogether, so maybe the reason I awoke was to get my respiration back on track. I am leaning toward the latter theory as the proper explanation.

It was the wee hours of Easter morning, around 2:00 am, when I awoke with a sense of unease. I did not startle myself out of a nightmare, but out of a deep sleep, probably phase 3 at that point, yet the sense of unease was there.

Unease escalated to near panic when I tried to take a breath and found it impossible to do so- something was blocking my airway. I tried harder and felt more than heard the gurgle of air trying to pass through saliva. During my sleep, I had rolled over onto my back and, mouth agape, I was snoring. Okay, I assume I was snoring, I don't have video/audio evidence of that, but it does fit with my personal history and the events of the night. So, while snoring, there was a build up of saliva in my mouth, and during one attempt at a deep breath, that saliva filled my throat and prevented the air from getting to my lungs.

I was able roll over onto my stomach and cough it out, which allowed me to immediately return to normal breathing. A few more coughs and all indications that there was ever a problem were totally dissipated. I got up go to the bathroom to see if I could cough out anything else, but it seemed to have all been cleared, so I went back to my bed, turned the pillow over and lay down on my stomach. I tried to avoid thinking of John Bonham, Jimi Hendrix and Mama Cass. I also thought of how embarrassing it would be to choke on one's saliva when stone cold sober. I could just imagine the autopsy and my wife's reaction.

While lying down trying to get back to sleep, it dawned on me what I had just done.

I had just inadvertently waterboarded myself. 

I will imagine that some people reading this will find my assertion ridiculous, but I was scared, confused, didn't feel like I had any control over what was going on, and just wanted to get oxygen into my lungs.  I will concede that what I went through wasn't sustained, and I did have free movement of my limbs and body, but subjects of waterboarding generally have an understanding of what is happening to them and have some chance to mentally prepare themselves for the ordeal. Also, I would guess that they will not be resting their head against the pillow for the next few nights wondering if it might happen again and hoping that they will wake up in time to prevent catastrophe if it does.

I thought about it last night. I will probably think about it again tonight, but I expect that the memory of this incident will be relatively fleeting and I will have forgotten the whole thing by next week. In the scale of life altering events, I don't think this even holds a candle to that time about 11 years ago when the wheels and hood of the Jeep Wrangler I was driving on an icy highway decided to switch places.

I always did agree with the Bush administration that waterboarding, at least the way conducted by our interrogators, was not torture, and having just gone through the experience I did, I am still resolute in that conviction. Was it pleasant? Not in the least, in fact, like I said, it was panic-inducing, but it was not actually painful. It could have been life altering in the ultimate way for me if I had not awoke when I did, but for the prisoners under interrogation that was never even an issue. All effects of the ordeal have completely disappeared, and I am none the worse for wear, just like the few subjects of waterboarding at Gitmo.

This has not really been a hot topic of discussion since it was revealed that enhanced interrogation techniques actually did help in tracking down bin Laden, but if it ever does become a topic of discussion, you can tell anybody who claims that waterboarding is definitely, beyond a doubt torture, you can tell them that you know of somebody who does that to himself in his sleep.

Friday, March 21

Still No Pulse

Seems like nobody else has come back to the playground. Oh, well. I'll continue to try the  defibrillator from time to time just to see if there is any response.

Wednesday, February 26

Arizona's Latest Controversy

The Arizona legislature passed SB 1062 last week, which is labeled "An Act Relating to the Free Exercise of Religion". It was passed seemingly in response to court cases in other states that mandate businesses to provide services for events they find violate their religious tenets, including the case of a baker in Colorado who was told he must provide wedding cakes for the weddings of gay couples. 

I have read claims likening this bill to the re-institution of Jim Crow laws, and the belief that this bill becoming law will usher in widespread discrimination against gays, and possibly other groups. People who support this bill state that it protects the religious freedom of business owners.

This situation reminds me of a not as well known controversy from about seven years ago. Muslim cab drivers at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport would refuse service to people carrying alcohol, stating that transporting alcohol would violate their religious beliefs. The Metropolitan Airports Commission there even went so far as to impose a thirty day suspension of a cab driver's license if they refused to pick up a passenger for having alcohol, which was upheld by a state appeals court.

Honestly, I don't see the big deal in a cabbie at an airport refusing service, since there are usually a myriad of taxis waiting to transport passengers at airports and if one cabby refuses you, the next one is just as good. Even if the percentage of Muslims driving cabs in Minnesota is so high that some passengers with a bottle had to wait up to 20 minutes to find a cab willing to take them to their destination, is the time inconvenience for these people really any less egregious than the inconvenience the cab drivers suffered for having to transport the alcohol?

Almost everywhere you go, there are competing interests vying for your business. If one florist doesn't want to provide petunias for your party, go to the one next door or across town. There are plenty of butchers, bakers and candlestick makers to fulfill everybody's needs, so you shouldn't have to sue one to get what you want. I personally would not want to give my money to somebody who didn't want to serve me anyway, and I would be sure to tell all my friends, family and whatever random strangers will lend me an ear all about that business's disdainful lack of service.

I see the overarching principle at stake here as one of personal freedom. If the government forces a person or business into conducting any transaction, that is a violation of their personal rights. It is not even a matter of asserting a religious conviction, just a personal preference. This right of association is a personal right, and does not extend to the government itself, or governmental agencies and employees. While a priest can refuse to officiate at a gay wedding, a clerk of court cannot refuse to certify the marriage certificate in jurisdictions where gay marriage is legal.

Just as there are limits on the right to free speech, (I am sure you are all familiar with the old crowded theater trope by now,) there are limits to this freedom of service. While it is perfectly acceptable for a doctor to refuse perform abortions, he should not be allowed to withhold needed care for a woman because of complications from an abortion performed by another doctor, and an ambulance driver should not be allowed to deny transportation for any reason other than immediate personal safety. However, the general principle is that people should be left alone to choose who they associate with, whether for business or social reasons, without any government interference.

Not everybody believes that businesses have the right to deny service. There have been threatened boycotts of Arizona if this bill becomes law.

Allow that to sink in for a moment before I continue.

There are people who are threatening to boycott Arizona over this bill, and they don't find it to be a violation of logic.

People who want to boycott Arizona over SB 1062 are basically asserting their right (and it is undoubtedly their right) to decline doing business with or in the state because they find it morally wrong for the state to say its residents have the right to decline doing business with those they find whose actions are morally wrong.

The proposed boycott seems to have a good chance of keeping this bill from becoming law. In fact, because of the boycott threats, especially an implied threat from the NFL that the Super Bowl, which is scheduled to be played in Arizona in 2015, could have a change of venue if the bill becomes law, has influenced three members of the Arizona Senate to write a letter to Governor Jan Brewer asking that she veto the bill.

I have read the text of Arizona's SB 1062. Why is it so controversial? Reading the actual bill, I couldn't tell you. It does not substantially change the law in any way other than to clarify that the use of that particular part of the Arizona Revised Statutes (the state law) can be used in trials that do not involve the state, state agencies or subordinate governments (e.g. county governments). It also clarifies what a person must establish (which I read as a synonym for "prove") in order to invoke the statute. This is where I have to really question the purpose of even passing this bill. Does it really expand or safeguard personal freedom? I do not see that it does. Does it encourage discrimination as opponents of the bill claim? I would say it no more encourages discrimination than the current law does.

I am not a lawyer, and have not followed the cases of the Muslim cabbies and Christian baker, or the few other related cases, closely enough to know what laws the states those cases were litigated in have on the books that purport to protect the religious rights of businesses, and I honestly don't know how much of a real effect this law will have on day to day life. It would seem to me, it should not really change much one way or the other. As I already wrote, it appears to only extend existing law to one's interactions with other private citizens, and I don't see why one should be compelled to violate one's conscience in service to other citizens if one cannot be compelled to do so in service to the state.

So, my final take on SB 1062 is that its intent is perfectly reasonable in hoping to protect the rights of Arizonans (Arizonians? Those sun-burnt kids and the retirees?) The people in support of the bill have a better moral case in that matter than those who oppose the bill. However, I do not believe that the statute as amended by this bill really expands or safeguards religious freedom any more than the statute as currently written does.

Not only do I see the bill unnecessary for this reason,but also I would take into account that three of its supporters in the senate have, for all intents and purposes, changed their vote on the bill after the fact. The margin of victory was 17-13. If we now consider these senators as having changed their vote, the new margin would be a 14-16 failure. For these reasons, I think that Governor Brewer should veto the bill.

I do not see the efficacy of signing the bill into law as it is. The minimal benefits of the bill are not worth the probable costs that will result from the expected boycotts of tourism and business transactions. I do not see a purpose of starting a war when the entire purpose of the battle would be to re-establish the status quo antebellum.

//cross posted from //

Sunday, February 23

Stick, Stones and a Blindside Tackle May Break My Bones...

I read a report on ESPN's website, or mobile site, or some site claiming an affiliation with ESPN, that the NFL is considering instituting a 15 yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty for use of racial slurs. Actually, the story pretty much states one epithet in particular. It is a bit uncertain whether the penalty would be invoked for all ethnic/homophobic phrases.

My initial reaction upon reading this was, as long as you can still tell another player that you are going to run down to the red light district and pay $15 dollars to violate his mother after the game, there really shouldn't be a problem.

I try to avoid the use of ethnic slurs and demeaning language, and support efforts to cut them back, but trying to penalize players for what they say to one another on the field is a bit on the ridiculous side. Nobody likes to be called names, and nobody likes to be talked down to, but you should know when stepping out on the field that, along with the possibility of being injured, there is a good chance that the players on the other team will be saying mean things to you in hopes of breaking your concentration. Part of your job as a competitor it to ignore it and carry on with the task at hand.

There is also the question of how far is the league going to even try to take this. The article to which I linked only referred to one particular slur, but mentioned the rules committee could discuss others. Will they differentiate between uses of that word? Will an African-American player who says the word but pronounces it with an "a" get the same penalty as a European-American who annunciates the "er" ending? Does this mean we can expect the home team to get penalized if a song by the collective band of  Easy E, Dr. Dre and Ice T is played over the stadium PA system?

More than that, suppose a cornerback tells a receiver, "You ain't getting by me, boy." Is that going to warrant a yellow flag? If a nose tackle tries to get an offensive guard discombobulated by telling him "Wow, in those pants really do show off your assets, baby," will that get the ref's whistle blasting?  Should a player be kicked out of the game for asking an opponent who is complaining to the side judge after every play, "Does that whine go with cheese and a cracker?"

I honestly don't know how much of a problem this really is in the NFL right now anyway. I am not anywhere near the playing fields during the games, so I don't know what they really say. I know that bullying has become a visible issue as a result of Richie Incognito's bullying of Jonathan Martin, so the league probably feels some pressure to do something about the situation, but that was mostly in the locker room and the practice field and the game time rule would not have much effect on that. Having spent over twenty years in the military and knowing what we would kid each other about, and remembering how we would refer to the enemy, I can imagine that participants in a violent game might be prone to a few off color remarks occasionally especially during tense situations.

Should players be more respectful of one another and just shut up and play the game? Of course they should. Efforts toward a more sportsmanship during sports is a great idea, but to invoke such a severe penalty against a player and his team for something that does no real harm to other players and gives no undue advantage to his own team is taking it too far. This isn't Scrabble. Let the players' actions decide the outcome of the game, not their words.

//cross posted from //

Can we re-animate this corpse?

Hey, everybody, what's up?

Tankdemon here, blogging from one of the nicer pits of the underworld. How nice is it? I have a shrubbery. You know you are really somebody in bleak, forgotten realms of the nether regions when you have a shrubbery.

With berries. (Don't eat the berries. They taste like fetid lemming guts and are extremely poisonous.) There is nothing better than a shrubbery with berries.

Looks like we have all found something better to do with our time than spend it here on our little green colloquium. That is understandable. I would be willing to wager that none of us really spend much time in our former playground that was headquartered under the Denver airport. It was nice while it lasted though, wasn't it?

Just thought I would post up something really quick like here. I don't know if anybody will notice that there is a new post, but, why not. After a couple of years of letting my own blog ( sit idle, I am getting back into semi-irregular posts over there, and thought that I might start cross posting here too.

Why not. I am tankdemon, and you have heard the stories about how much we underworlders like to reanimate corpses.

Have a nice day, everybody.

But not too nice. I wouldn't want your day to overshadow the shadow world's greatest shrubbery.

Monday, September 21

This is only a test.
Or maybe more, depending...

Saturday, October 6

Syria pwned.

Marc Schulman:
Assuming the information in this article is accurate, Israel did more than attack Syria: it also sent a message to Tehran.

Ahhh makes me think of Patton: "Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man." Integrated anti-air defenses haven't really been all that effective since the Vietnam era, and I'm starting to think that they're obsolete technology.
They're talking about this article in Aviation Week:
The big mystery of the strike is how did the non-stealthy F-15s and F-16s get through the Syrian air defense radars without being detected? Some U.S. officials say they have the answer.

U.S. aerospace industry and retired military officials indicated today that a technology like the U.S.-developed “Suter” airborne network attack system developed by BAE Systems and integrated into U.S. unmanned aircraft by L-3 Communications was used by the Israelis. The system has been used or at least tested operationally in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last year.

The technology allows users to invade communications networks, see what enemy sensors see and even take over as systems administrator so sensors can be manipulated into positions so that approaching aircraft can’t be seen, they say. The process involves locating enemy emitters with great precision and then directing data streams into them that can include false targets and misleading messages algorithms that allow a number of activities including control.

A Kuwaiti newspaper wrote that "Russian experts are studying why the two state-of-the art Russian-built radar systems in Syria did not detect the Israeli jets entering Syrian territory. Iran reportedly has asked the same question, since it is buying the same systems and might have paid for the Syrian acquisitions."

No kidding. I'll bet the Iranian regime thugs are crapping their pants, and the Russians too. "The process involves locating enemy emitters with great precision and then directing data streams into them that can include false targets and misleading messages algorithms that allow a number of activities including control." Sounds like Star Trek stuff, don't it?
The system in question is thought to be the new Tor-M1 launchers which carries eight missiles as well as two of the Pachora-2A system. Iran bought 29 of the Tor launchers from Russia for $750 million to guard its nuclear sites,
and I'll bet they want their money back. Oh well. Caveat emperor, or whatever.

Debka seems to believe there's a dirty bomb in the works. For whatever it's worth (and yeah, I know, it's Debka, the guys who breathlessly reported a nonexistent Turkish-Iraqi war last summer), their latest DNW [paid subscription service] claims:

Iran, Syria and North Korea are believed to be the first nations in history to have acquired dirty bombs as operational weapons, stowing their main stock in northern Syria. This discovery has injected fresh urgency into the Bush administration’s approach to the nuclear issue. Policy-makers have been running around in circles for a strategy and options to scotch the new threat at source.

The Sept. 6 air strike over Syria was the first result; it also carried a warning to Tehran, Pyongyang and Damascus that they had better hurry up and do away with any stocks of such weapons they may have or else incur the treatment meted out to Damascus at its “agricultural research center.”

Syria was targeted for the air strike both as the hiding place of the bulk of the RDD stock and because there is no way its presence could be hidden unbeknownst to the ruler. The buck clearly stopped at the presidential palace in Damascus. No one therefore believed President Bashar Assad’s hasty message to Washington through undercover back doors denying he had any personal knowledge of the nefarious operation at the Beir al Harj site and had ordered it investigated.

I'm not going to excerpt any more lest I bring down the wrath of the Debka Copyright Mossad, but you get the idea.

Anyway, that about sums it up. So who do you think is gonna win this thing - the guys who can barely manage to put their toxic waste on a rocket or plane, or the guys who can "include false targets and misleading messages algorithms that allow a number of activities including control"?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Tuesday, July 3

Mad In America

"They keep sending our jobs away."

Here's a great song from the brother of an old friend of mine.
Troubled by the rising tied of offshoring around the country musician and CSEA Local 2001 member Steve Dube put pen to paper and wrote an anthem called “Mad in America” for his band ETX.

[Dube]: The song was written as a protest basically, just because of all of the engineering and IT jobs going away.

Dube is now trying to bring that protest via song to music lovers everywhere by landing on ITunes top 100 on July 4. How? Dube is calling on everyone to log into their ITunes player on the Independence Day holiday and download the song. If enough people do it, the song should hypothetically find a place among the Avril Lavignes and Fall Out Boys of the world.

[Dube2]: We’d like to just get a grassroots effort going where the song could become like an anthem for American workers just to show Washington in an election year that we don’t want the middle class to go away and we want jobs in the United States.

I've just downloaded the song to iTunes and I can personally and enthusiastically recommend it. "Mad in America" raises important questions about globalization and the outsourcing of American jobs. And it's a great song, too.

My friend Chuck comes from a family of patriots and is also a musician, having performed with Leigh Gregory. Go have a listen to Mad in America by ETx - and you can download the whole thing for just 99 cents.
eXTReMe Tracker Weblog Commenting and Trackback by