Data Miners

"First, leave no data unstructured."

We Are Fighting Terrorists

In your most recent post, Mr. Beerman, you defined a terrorist as “someone that engages in acts of terror,” noting, however, that “this definition is so vague that it is close to meaningless.”

I agree with you on the latter account, and would offer a second, perhaps broader definition of a terrorist: one who engages in politics outside of established, oftentimes lawful, channels. I present this definition for two reasons:

1. It removes the negative connotation associated with “acts of terror”
2. It provides space for interpretation across socio-political boundaries and ideologies

Admittedly, my definition is equally vague. It places terrorists in such a broad context so as to include just about anyone with a bone to pick. Hillary Rodham Clinton, with her references to latent racism in the GOP, is a card-carrying terrorist by my definition. And we shouldn’t exclude our current George Bush, who, as Mr. Beerman suggests, is “using tactics [in the war on terror] that should be considered criminal.”

But again, I purposefully left room for interpretation – and, hopefully, serious questioning – to challenge “normal,” American-held conceptions of terrorists. To view terrorists so narrowly is to cut ourselves at the knee. Take airport screening, for example. If we limit our security efforts to young, seemingly Arab men, we are making it that much easier for a middle-aged, white woman to carry her bag of plastic explosives on the plane. We need to accept a larger definition of terrorists if we are going to fight them effectively.

So how do we fight them, you ask? I would argue we don’t. If we assume “the global war of terror,” as Mr. Beerman writes, “should not be directionless campaigns against undefined enemies,” then we’ve already lost. We’re on a snipe hunt in Afghanistan, and Iraq, well, who knows about Iraq. Both campaigns, by Mr. Beerman’s definition of warfare – “Wars are serious business…with clearly defined enemies and goals” – are politically worthless endeavors that guarantee America’s loss.

Can we, then, unequivocally define our enemies and goals when combating noncombatants? I would argue no – its part of the brilliance of terrorism. It’s also brilliant for terrorists to perform unimaginable atrocities on a nation that is pinned as a bastion of civility and human rights. It would be stupid for Osama bin Laden to accept American notions of warfare and resign his followers to our tactics.

The war on terror is ambiguous because we are fighting a faceless enemy (that doesn’t wear uniforms) that defends an ideology (not a nation with defined borders). Consequently, traditional military tactics, and associated codes of conduct, simply won’t work against al Qaeda. To win the “war on terror” we should, first and foremost, stop packaging it as a war, which carries an inherently militaristic connotation. Instead, we should target the political motivations of terrorists because, after all, they just might have a legitimate reason for detonating a car bomb, throwing rocks at police officers, or distributing anti-government literature. America should not target terrorists – we will always, always lose in a battle of symmetric warfare – and spend more time addressing the causes of terrorism.

What are we fighting?

It's been a while since anyone here at The Recipe has had the enthusiasum to write a piece of any real significance. Glad to see Dr Cook has broken the ice.

Though he didn't come right out and ask it, Dr Cook in his last post alludes to the fundamental question regarding the War on Terror. What is a terrorist? We know that we have declared war on terrorists, but five years on, we're still not sure as to who they are, or even what their exact aims are.

So what is a terrorist? Broadly speaking, a terrorist is simply someone that engages in acts of terror. However this definition is so vague that it is close to meaningless, and at any rate, presents many historical problems. For example, how should an American administration treat an organization that engages in acts that some would consider terror, even if many others think morally justifiable? Before they were a political party, the African National Congress waged an armed campaign against the apartheid regime of South Africa, complete with bombings and assasinations.

My point here is not to defend apartheid or to question the tactics and political aims of the ANC. Rather, my point is to show that words such as "terrorism", "terrorist", and "acts of terror"are vague and relative to your particular point of view, so that it is unwise and dangerous to use them as blanket terms. Bush certainly know this, since he has struggled (without much success) to name our current "enemy". He has tried "jihadists", "islamo-fascists", etc., yet he generally reverts back to "terrorists", since it seems to encompass all things bad while offending no one in the electorate.

Yet this is a dangerous policy, for how do you fight an enemy that you cannot even properly define? The problems are endless. As someone said once, the first step must always be to "know your enemy."

I think this is why I've been so skeptical about the global war on terror, since I've never been too sure what we were fighting against, other than another September 11. Wars are a serious business, and should be treated as such, with clearly defined enemies and goals. They should not be directionless campaigns against undefined enemies using tactics that should be considered criminal. It makes you wonder as to who the terrorist actually is.

International(?) War On Terror

If, as some profess, there is an international terrorist network, are we to assume they all work secretly (and effectively) in concert? And, to that end, how strong is the coordination and cooperation among various terrorist “cells” and factions? Do terrorists compete for new tactics, bigger targets, and more time on the front page? Am I right to use the term “they”?

I only ask because there are policy implications for combating the “global war on terrorism” if terrorists only share a loose affiliation – and an affiliation largely enforced by America’s portrayal of a monolithic enemy.

The vast, international al-Qaeda network – and those who seek to destroy it – should talk about targets. The United States, by most accounts, is at the top of the list, with second place a long way back. So what about the rest of the West? As Anne Applebaum recently noted, “it's not unusual in Germany, or elsewhere in Europe, to hear that the ‘war on terrorism’ is phony, a jumped-up invention of the Bush administration and the American media, a pretend reason for the invasion of Iraq, a laughably stupid way of conning voters.” Statements like Anne’s beg the question: Do terrorists agree with this, and, more importantly, do they use it to their advantage?

If terrorists focus solely on the United States, perhaps ignoring targets in Germany and Sweden, are they furthering or injuring their seemingly “ultimate” goal of dismantling the ever-powerful Western influence? Here’s a (poor) hypothetical…

John Q. Terrorist is unhappy with the Swedish welfare state. He works hard for under-the-table pay, but can’t find sanctioned, steady employment. Fast forward through years of hardship, and he finds himself attending terrorist meetings – assuming that’s how it works – where the group is planning an attack on a Swedish bus depot in order to draw attention to their plight. “But wait,” John speaks up, “we can do more damage to the ‘West’ – which basically invented the welfare state – if we finance terrorist acts in the United States.” His comrades look to the newcomer with curiosity. “And how do you figure that?” asks the leader. “It’s simple,” John replies, “if we attack Sweden, they will come to sympathize with the United States, thus adding to our woes. If, however, we attack the United States, we will divide further the two states. And not only that, we will further divide Europe and the United States – the two largest components of the ‘West.’”

I guess what I’m really thinking about is the relationship between terrorist acts and their lasting impacts on domestic politics. If terrorists are actually functioning globally, then they should consider a strategy of divide and conquer. I’m sure European and American leaders have already noted it, but terrorists can probably accomplish a great deal more by focusing their efforts on one target – maybe the United States? – and leaving the rest to judge from across the pond.

Now for something completely different

Welcome to the world of supermodels

I Finally Defeated Ragtime!

It took 17 rounds, but Ragtime finally went down. I opened a tab, closed a tab, and walked out a stable man.

But then we went to Four Courts.

And then I had an appointment with the Doctor.

And then, well, and then I wasn't so stable. So let's review:

My team, aptly titled the "C-Men," came out sprinting in a marathon of drinking - and finished equally strong. The aggressive pace was set by a young, promising man fresh out of the farm leagues. He carried himself with unmatched poise and confidence, putting on a display reminiscent of the early MJ. Although only a newbie, I must admit that by the evening's close I looked to him as an equal.

So what else was interesting? Funny you should ask.

I nearly scored with a married woman. Go ahead, read it again: I nearly scored with a married woman. True, she was the wife of a good friend of mine, but he wasn't there. And I was. Call me simple, call me wrong, but there is something undeniably appealing about a woman with a rock. At one point in the evening, a coworker pulled me aside and said, "Dude, she's married..." So I left it alone and downed a car bomb. Not the best decision of my life - giving up on the married woman, that is - but probably for the best.

And on that note, I leave you with a thousand words...

"My thoughts exactly, Mr. President!"

According to the Post, "President Bush conceded Wednesday that the United States is taking heavy casualties in Iraq, and [he] said, 'I know many Americans are not satisfied with the situation' there."

Why is that headline news? Is it really a big deal that the President knows what the American people think? Ugh...

Someday, years from now, I hope Bush takes the time to read a history of the Iraq War. And I hope he shudders at every word.

Donuts

There are three jelly donuts left in the kitchen. No one seems to want them. Let's consult our good friend, Homer J. Simpson...

Homer: Donut?
Lisa: No thanks. Do you have any fruit?
Homer: This has purple stuff inside. Purple is a fruit.

This dog means business

Five hours without moving.

The Dime Of Truth

I received a note from my primary care physician, Dr. Leonard, today, informing me that my blog was "lacking." To this I can only agree.

So let us turn to the fabled Dime of Truth. Many of you following along at home have probably never heard of the Dime, nor it's mythic powers of prediction. Well, then, young Jedi, allow me to explain. The history of the Dime of Truth dates back about eight years to a simpler time, a time when life-altering decisions were made with the flip of a coin.

It all started over an argument - an argument I'm sure we've all suffered through many times - as to what we should do tonight. My friends and I were presented with two options: stay in or go out. We weighed both options and discussed the merits of each at length. Hours later, we were in the same position, presented with the same problem. We were stuck in the trenches.

Then, like a bolt of lightening, my friend had a brilliant idea - let's flip a coin! We scoured our pockets and came up with - lo and behold - the Dime of Truth. We all agreed that the Dime would decide our fate, there would be no turning back. A few rotations later, we were on our way out the door.

Fast forward to this last weekend, and the Dime once again, in all it's glorious glory, spoke the Truth. Here's how it happened...

We were out hiking, and couldn't decide if we should stop or keep going. "The Dime of Truth will guide us," I said, and so it did. I flipped the Dime, it landed on tails (stop our hike), and so we stopped. But then someone questioned the Dime: "How do you know it's right?" I responded, calmly and coolly, "You just know, it's a gut feeling." However, I could sense my pseudo-metaphysical explanation was grossly insufficient, so I decided to offer a more tangible argument. I flipped a 2 euro piece, and it came up tails. Then I flipped a quarter, and it came up tails. Then I flipped ol' Honest Abraham, and he shouted "tails!" Then, to seal the deal, I threw a nickel in the mix - again, tails.

My audience was in awe. Never before in their otherwise enlightened lives had they seen such an incredible display. Suffice it to say, they were new people.

Finally, as we were packing into the Cherokee, I offered one last exhibition of majesty. I flipped all five.

Tails.
Tails.
Tails.
Tails.
Tails.

Believe in the Dime, friends, believe in the Dime.

T.O.

Discussing Sunday's loss to Philadelphia, Terrell Owens said, "I'm a competitor. I do not like to lose. Maybe I need to work harder."

Take it at face value.

You heard it here first

Yesterday was my last day at the law firm. It was an amicable departure. I was a bit sad to leave (though that quickly passed), and they were sad to see me go. Sure, it was a nice place to work, but there comes a point in life when every man must ask himself, "where is this going?" And for me and the firm, the answer was nowhere. I have been offered a new job elsewhere, and hopefully I'll be able to sink my teeth into it. And between you and me, I think I'm better suited for my new position than for my old one. Finally, after a very long and at times painful job hunt, I'm bursting with excitement for the new challenges that lie ahead.

In other news, baseball playoffs have arrived. In general, I don't really follow sports that much. The only team that I really care about are the Redskins, and quite frankly, they can be so frustrating most of the time that the only way a fan can keep himself sane is by distancing himself a little bit from the trials and tribulations of the team. But I digress. New York is very much a baseball town, and I admit that I've caught some of the fever. It's been fun watching the Mets during this amazing year that they're having, despite coming dreadfully close to blowing it at the end of the regular season. Still, they've looked pretty good against the Dodgers this series, and they seem to have found a way to get around losing two of their best pitchers the week before the playoffs. Game 3 is in LA tonight (or this afternoon for our west coast readers).

Brilliant Idea

I am looking for investors for Life Plan change #4,278. Apparently, there is money to be had in Emu Farming.

"No one ask no questions, no one tells on lies."

It's a sad day in the music world.

Sometime within in the past month - I noticed last night - the rules changed. "The Man", in all his infinite wisdom, decided that dedicated Sublime fans should no longer have free, no-strings-attached access to Sublime's massive underground live album collection. I am probably still weeping as you read this.

Once a repository of twenty-odd live albums, www.sublimearchive.com has been forced to show this on their Sublime download page. Apparently, Sublime Archive "contains unauthorized music and images of the above-referenced musical groups [Sublime and Long Beach Dub All Stars] and that such materials are available for public access without the written authorization of the owners [Universal Music Publishing Group]."

Okay, fine, I understand (although I don't necessarily agree) that we should not give copyrighted music away for free. But in the case of Sublime's early performances, there is no other way. The compilations were never released on CD and aren't explicitly the property of Universal - and therefore they won't be "public[ly]" released.

Most of the albums were recorded by pioneering Sublime fans who attended the garage shows, bar gigs, and jam sessions. The recordings are raw and natural, a true live performance experience. You feel like you are only a few seats back.

Ultimately, the albums aren't for everyone. I doubt too many folks would pay 10 dollars to hear them, which leads me to believe that Universal, assuming they even have these collections, will catalogue them, shelf them, and forget them. Sublime's earliest offerings will be lost forever.

I won't rant any further. If you want a copy, let me know - maybe we can work something out with Universal.

The idiot does not fall far from the tree

Wednesday Hates Me

Why, you ask? A few glaring reasons include:

1. I forgot my belt
2. I forgot my socks
3. I forgot my razor (I planned to shave at the gym)
4. I am out of shape and I ran this morning
5. I ate cereal sans milk for breakfast
6. It's 9:22 am and I am already hating it

Hide And Go Seek

Today, finding myself trapped between boredom and 5:00 pm, I decided to trek across the great blogosphere. During my enlightening travels, I encountered this.

Heed the warning, friends.

Back, safe and sound inside the beltway

Dictionary

There are many obvious victims in President Bush's dual Wars in Iraq and on Terror. American servicemen and women, Iraqi civilians, the right to due process, civil liberties, the checks and balances originally built into the Federal government, a press that holds the President accountable to his actions, to name a few.

But another casualty is laying underneath all of the others. We have lost the definition of the word "freedom" to President Bush's warmongering. The word "freedom" is used on a daily basis by Bush. In any of his speeches, he utters the word dozens of times. We went into Iraq for "freedom" and the larger War on Terror is being waged in the name of "freedom." We are told that as Americans, we like freedom, and terrorists hate freedom. Apparantly the French don't like freedom either, so the Federal government took it upon themselves to rechristen french fries as freedom fries.

But what does the word "freedom" mean anymore? Has freedom moved from being an abstract idea to a tangible object?

Of course not. Freedom is an idea. It must be discussed within a particular context in order to have meaning. One can speak of 'freedom from persecution" or "freedom of speech" but the word by itself is vague, and to some extent, useless.

Which is why I always cringe a little bit when I hear that we are at war for freedom. That we went into Iraq to give the Iraqis freedom? Freedom of what? Freedom for what? Sure, the Iraqis may be free from Saddam, but they aren't free from violence or fear.

"Freedom" has become a buzzword, since on the surface it's a simple idea, and in these trying times no one would admit to being against it. But if we allow people to continue to bastardize it, then we risk losing any importance that the word or idea ever had in the first place.

Back In Business

Another enjoyable weekend. Live bluegrass on Friday night, old friends on Saturday night, and the Nationals last home game today. All in all, a great time.

On a related note, I've been making a conscious effort to catch up with old friends. Thus far, my mission has been largely successful - in the past month, I've seen just about every childhood, high school, and college friend that I would like to still be friends with. Old friends are great to have around. Here is an example from a Saturday night phone call:

Beerman: Hello?
Cook: Beerman, where is the Sinai Peninsula located?
Beerman: What, the Sinai Peninsula? You have to speak up, I am at a bar.
Cook: Yea, the Sinai Peninsula.
Beerman: In the Middle East, between Egypt and Isreal.
Cook: Thanks, Beerman. Bye.
Beerman: Later.