"Even smiling makes my face ache."

[ebonlock]

So at some point last night what I thought was just a bad allergy attack turned out to be a rather sneaky cold. It pounced on me around 11 pm and kept me up most of the night with a runny nose and sinues that threatened to burst out of my skull. Now that would've been a pretty sight for Aelf to wake up to. "Hey Ellie, why aren't you up yet, it's after se-...OH MY GOD!"

I'd attributed the general run down feeling to being tired post-houseguest as I usually am, but I guess there was a bit more to it. *sigh* I used to have an immune system that worked, I really did.

Anyway the decongestants seem to be working a bit, and a cup of hot cappuccino soothed my throat sufficiently. I know I should be drinking tea, but as much as I want to be a tea drinker I'm just not. I like teas, I love the smell of them, and I like the idea of them, but I'm just not into drinking them. *shrug*

So, got to see the first two eps of Horatio Hornblower last night and was highly entertained. I think I also managed to vastly amuse caredhel and cyranocyrano when I dismantled the afghan I'd been working on and created the biggest yarn ball ever. I'm much happier with the new version of the afghan I got about 1/3 of finished last night, and I hope my sis likes it. If nothing else it's warm and soft and that's definitely something.

Am considering sending in a piece to the Lord of the Rings Official Fan Club’s 2003 Fan Art Contest, but I'm not sure of what yet. And the entries have to be in by March 31. Is it really reasonable to expect to finish something I like by then? Hmm. I kinda liked the Frodo portrait I did, but I'm not sure it's good enough for a contest. I'll ponder this.



WASHINGTON - The intense interrogation of Khalid Shaikh
Mohammed, the suspected architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks
on America who is in U.S. custody, is likely to stop just short
of torture, U.S. intelligence experts said Monday.

Source of the above quote

Good to know we're "likely to stop just short of torture", but it does make me wonder what definition they're using for "torture". Personally I thought we'd all come to the conclusion long ago that such methods were hopelessly inefficient for gathering anything even vaguely resembling useful information from prisoners, but hey, what do I know? And if we're fighting a "war on terrorism" does that mean Khalid gets POW treatment under the Geneva Convention?

Just thinking aloud...

Oh, before I forget, there will be another Anti-War march in SF on March 15th:
The A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition and other organizations are calling
for an Emergency National Anti-War Convergence to TAKE IT TO THE
WHITE HOUSE on Saturday, March 15. There will be a parallel
activities in San Francisco (gather at 11 am at Civic Center
Plaza) and Los Angeles (gather 12 noon at Olympic and Broadway,
march to Downtown Federal Building).

http://www.internationalanswer.org/campaigns/m15/index.html

I'm planning to attend this one, anyone interested in coming with?

Comments

[murdoch.livejournal.com]

Can we technically even declare "war" without the other side having an "army"?

No, we can't. Also, Congress must declare said war, not the president. Wars against non-countries aren't officially "wars" (I think that Vientam and Korea were officially "police actions" - don't forget the "War an Drugs", "War on Poverty", and the Quayle "War on Unwed Mothers").

I don't know what all the Geneva Convention applies to, but I do know that it limits the liability of my lost luggage to something like $16.21/pound for international flights. It's a convention; I don't know what teeth it has (but I do remember that the Taliban being classified as "illegal combatants" meant that they had *many* fewer rights than real POW's. Mind you, they were also distinctly nasty to their own people.).

Re:

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

No, we can't. Also, Congress must declare said war, not the president. Wars against non-countries aren't officially "wars" (I think that Vientam and Korea were officially "police actions" - don't forget the "War an Drugs", "War on Poverty", and the Quayle "War on Unwed Mothers").

So, it should be the "Police Action on Terrorism" then? I suppose that makes more sense than a war against a group without a specific country. But it does rather leave the barn door wide open, doesn't it? I mean if we don't have to play by the rules of war are there any limits on what we can and can't do?

[murdoch.livejournal.com]

I mean if we don't have to play by the rules of war are there any limits on what we can and can't do?

The only limits are what we can get away with. This is true regardless of what conventions are in force. Also note that we're lining up allies for the War On Iraq, so we're kinda creating the rules for this one as we go along - as long as enough people agree with what gets done, it's "OK".

Re:

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

The only limits are what we can get away with. This is true regardless of what conventions are in force. Also note that we're lining up allies for the War On Iraq, so we're kinda creating the rules for this one as we go along - as long as enough people agree with what gets done, it's "OK".

It was actually more of a rhetorical question. I guess I just have a problem with hypocrisy. We keep holding ourselves up as the "good guys" here, as morally superior, righteous, the white hats. And yet I can't help reading a "might makes right" message underneath it all. It kind of makes me want to go and re-read Animal Farm again...

[murdoch.livejournal.com]

Red White And Blue flags good. Other flags bad.

(Oh, wait, what did the French one look like?)

[centerfire.livejournal.com]

Plain white.