More on the U.S.S. Liberty case.

Read it.

For greater convenience of reading, I have edited the six parts of my notes on the new OTO USGL Strategic Plan into a single file on my web site. Links to the original six separate files on that site will automatically redirect to the new edition. The content is mostly unchanged. The LJ posts of the six parts remain as they were.

While on the subject of my web site, I would like to point out my new RSS feed for those who use Google Reader, Firefox Live Bookmarks, or other RSS client tools.

From Mick LaSalle’s review in the San Francisco Chronicle of the new movie Because I Said So, starring Diane Keaton and Mandy Moore:

It’s the function of this kind of comedy to dredge up all manner of emotional sludge and sewage and then cover it in sugar and call it oatmeal. That means that at a certain point the movie must buy into the characters’ delusions. Thus, we’re assured that Mom is really motivated by love and that Milly is someone some poor schnook should actually want to marry, even though she’s a motor-mouthed emotional wreck and comes equipped with a mother-in-law more scary than Baby Jane’s classic rendition of “I’ve Written a Letter to Daddy.”

I just discovered today that a film version of Christopher Priest’s novel The Prestige is about to be released. I am looking forward to this with great anticipation. While movies based on books are often disappointing, this one has promise: the cast is excellent, and the screenwriter and director have pretty good track records. I read the book several years ago and liked it very much; Priest had managed to write a book with all the ingredients necessary for a popular success without losing the careful, thoughtful qualities which have always been an important part of his appeal as a novelist. Now it is a film, and I want to see it.

The book, needless to say, is strongly recommended.

This post was originally titled “Munich Parking Lot” in accordance with what I was told about these pictures when they were given to me. Thanks to padawanchina for tracking down more accurate information. The pictures are pretty cool nevertheless. The fact that this is a VW storage facility, rather than a public parking lot, explains why the cars all look so similar.

The trigrams have defined code points in the Unicode 3.0+ standard. See (and if you don’t see, get a better browser):

Those among you who are beyond average in your knowledge of computers or mathematics may note that the trigrams are arranged in binary order, taking yang as 0 and the top line as the least significant bit. In fact, the last hexadecimal digit of each trigram’s code point matches the binary value of the hexagram itself by this reading.

[The hypocrite is] divided against himself, with a tendency to break up. He will see his own qualities everywhere, and thus obtain a radical misconception of phenomena.

—A.C., Magick in Theory and Practice,
Introduction, footnote to Theorem #20

This statement, which I think is true of habitual liars and manipulators as well as hypocrites, is worth analyzing.

Speaking falsely or in a way contrary to one’s own conduct divides one against oneself, for one’s words and thoughts/deeds are in opposition. The “tendency to break up” is implicit in this, since the person lacks integrity not only in the sense of honesty, honor, or adherence to ethical standards, but also in the sense of which one might say of a damaged structure that its integrity has or has not been affected— whether it is still sound, stable, and capable of fulfilling its purpose. If a structure no longer has integrity, then it is in danger of collapsing, or in A.C.’s words, it has “a tendency to break up.” Or, as it is elsewhere written, “If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand?” (Luke 11:18, KJV)

The hypocrite, liar, or manipulator “sees his own qualities everywhere” because he is wrapped up in himself, focused on projecting outward a false image of reality as he would have it be, rather than on perceiving (bringing inward) reality as it actually is. His world-view is thus based not on perception, but on a fictional world of his own creation. This world, being made of his own substance and in his own image, shares his faults: it is as false and malicious as he is. When he looks at it, he sees these qualities but does not recognize their origin in himself. Thus he “see[s] his own qualities everywhere, and thus obtain[s] a radical misconception of phenomena,” as anyone who has known a manipulative liar well should be able to corroborate.

They keep themselves from the kisses of my Mother Babylon, and in their lonely fortresses they pray to the false moon. And they bind themselves together with an oath, and with a great curse. And of their malice they conspire together, and they have power, and mastery, and in their cauldrons do they brew the harsh wine of delusion, mingled with the poison of their selfishness.

Thus they make war upon the Holy One, sending forth their delusion upon men, and upon everything that liveth. So that their false compassion is called compassion, and their false understanding is called understanding, for this is their most potent spell.

Yet of their own poison do they perish, and in their lonely fortresses shall they be eaten up by Time that hath cheated them to serve him, and by the mighty devil Choronzon, their master, whose name is the Second Death, for the blood that they have sprinkled on their Pylon, that is a bar against the Angel Death, is the key by which he entereth in.

—Liber 418, 12th Æthyr

(Unknown): I think it’s disgraceful that of the ten best-selling novels of all time, seven were written by you.

Mickey Spillane: You’re lucky I’ve only written seven books.

“I know President Bush. I wouldn’t say he’s a friend of mine. And trust me, I am no President Bush.”

—Senator Joe Lieberman, 5 July 2006

a T-shirt with the words, “I Survived Valentine’s Day.”

For the just man there is no law; he is a law unto himself.

—St. John of the Cross

I don’t generally have much use for market analysts such as the Gartner Group, but this piece consists of a few well-chosen remarks about Sony’s recent CD copy-protection fiasco. In particular, the discovery that the “protection” can be trivially bypassed with a small piece of opaque tape is rather amusing.

As the article rather bluntly observes, “Sony BMG has created serious public-relations and legal issues for itself, and for no good reason.”

“Thus the sage de-friends without de-friending.”

—not from the Tao Te Ching

At this point, with 86% of precincts reporting, every single one of the propositions on California’s special election ballot are failing.

Good night.

“Burning Man presents itself as something new and progressive, but in reality it’s something old and reactionary: It’s the ghost of the Sixties, kept like a castrated, defanged zoo animal in a desert cage, wallowing blissfully in its own muck.”

—Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone, 9/22/05

“Then there is a sorcerors’ explanation!”

“Certainly. Sorcerors are men. We’re creatures of thought. We seek clarifications.”

“I was under the impression that my great flaw was to seek explanations.”

“No. Your flaw is to seek convenient explanations, explanations that fit you and your world. What I object to is your reasonableness. A sorceror explains things in his world too, but he’s not as stiff as you... The explanation is not what you would call an explanation; nevertheless, it makes the world and its mysteries, if not clear, at least less awesome. That should be the essence of an explanation, but that is not what you seek. You’re after the reflection of your ideas.”

[...]

“You’re afraid of me?” he asked.

“Not of you, but of what you represent.”

“I represent the warrior’s freedom. Are you afraid of that?”

“No. But I’m afraid of the awesomeness of your knowledge. There is no solace for me, no haven to go to.”

“You’re again confusing issues. Solace, haven, fear, all of them are moods that you have learned without ever questioning their value. As one can see, the black magicians have already engaged all your allegiance.”

“Who are the black magicians, don Juan?”

“Our fellow men are the black magicians. And since you are with them, you too are a black magician. Think for a moment. Can you deviate from the path that they’ve lined up for you? No. Your thoughts and your actions are fixed forever in their terms. That is slavery. I, on the other hand, brought you freedom. Freedom is expensive, but the price is not impossible. So, fear your captors, your masters. Don’t waste your time and your power fearing me.”

[...]

“Your knowledge of the world told you that in the bushes one can only find animals prowling or men hiding behind the foliage. You held that thought, and naturally you had to find ways to make the world conform to that thought.”

“But I wasn’t thinking at all, don Juan.”

“Let’s not call it thinking then. It is rather the habit of having the world always conform to our thoughts. When it doesn’t, we simply make it conform. Moths as large as a man cannot even be a thought, therefore, for you, what was in the bushes had to be a man.

“The same thing happened [when you talked] with the coyote. Your old habits decided the nature of that encounter too. Something took place between you and the coyote, but it wasn’t talk. I have been in the same quandary myself. I’ve told you that I once talked with a deer; now you’ve talked to a coyote, but neither you nor I will ever know what really took place at those times... When the sorcerors’ explanation became clear to me, it was too late to know what the deer did to me. I said that we talked, but it wasn’t so. The deer and I did something, but at the time it was taking place I needed to make the world conform to my ideas, just like you did. I had been talking all my life, just like you, therefore my habits prevailed and were extended to the deer. When the deer came to me and did whatever it did, I was forced to understand it as talking.”

—Carlos Castaneda, Tales of Power

Okay, this has amusement value. The list of other titles by Edgar Allan Seuss at the bottom may be the best part. Thanks to richard_kaczyn for the link.

The most interesting news story I’ve seen this morning (the Category 5 hurricane aside) is this one about the decoding of the nearly invisible information that many color printers are embedding on every page they produce. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has found that Xerox DocuColor printers, frequently found at Kinko’s and other copy and print shops, encode their model and serial number, as well as the date and time the page was printed, in a nearly microscopic pattern of yellow dots reproduced all over the page. Many other printer models also embed information into printouts in this way, though the exact content varies from model to model and most have not yet been decoded.

The following is just something that passed through my mind recently. It is not intended as a rigorous logical statement or proof of anything; mere food for thought.

A popular maxim, even among many people who believe in compassionate giving, is, “Whatever does not kill me makes me stronger.” Does this not suggest that if someone is undergoing a crisis of some sort, regardless of the exact nature of that crisis, they should be left alone to deal with it as best they can, thereby to extract the maximum benefit or strength-making force from it? If we intervene to make their crisis easier to handle— to reduce its severity— are we not also reducing the strength-making power of the crisis? If we do not accept this, is it because we do not really believe the maxim in the first place, or for some other reason?

In the humanitarianism of Aquarius there is no magician to understand that “love is the law, love under will.” It is the smug aloofness of the philanthropist. Certain schools of late years have written very enthusiastically of Aquarius, but their attitude may seem to adherents of the true Rosicrucian doctrine as somewhat hypocritical and pharisaical. This is to be explained by the fact that in Aquarius the Sun is in his detriment. People who wish to reform the world (on a pattern of theoretical excellence totally unconnected with human nature) are at the very antipodes of solar life and light. They fear vitality.

—A.C., 777, remarks on col. XLII, row 28

It’s really painful arguing about science and religion with people who understand neither but consider themselves competent in both.

In some ways, the most annoying type of idiot to debate is the superficially intelligent and educated one. He can go on at considerable length, and most of his points, if taken in isolation and separated from the conclusions he draws from them, seem almost reasonable, yet the whole argument adds up to raving nonsense. Critiquing this sort of thing is rather tiresome, for the errors are more subtle than are typically the case with more conventionally stupid idiots, and often they resolve down to subtle distinctions and unperceived misunderstandings that the idiot may mistake for matters of opinion, thereby bringing the discussion to a grinding and inconclusive halt.

Today’s recommended reading: synesis reflects on meeting occultist Andrew Chumbley.

I observe that one of the greatest of all post-punk bands, Killing Joke, is finally getting at least some of its back catalogue remastered. This is particularly good news because their ’80s albums, in their previous CD releases, sounded rather poor. So far I have seen only their first three studio albums, plus the long-out-of-print concert album Ha! Killing Joke Live, in remastered form. I have not bought all of them yet, but Ha! sounds very good.

I really don’t want to defend Harriet Miers; I have no idea whether or not she would make a good Supreme Court justice, and if nothing else, she is guilty of being a Bush crony. However, I am becoming mildly irritated with the chorus of “But she has no experience as a judge!” emanating from the less-informed section of the peanut gallery. Superficially, it sounds reasonable; shouldn’t someone being appointed to the highest court in the land have experience deciding cases in some of the lower courts? But history simply doesn’t show that such experience has ever been considered a necessary qualification for Supreme Court justices, and in fact some of the greatest SC justices had no previous experience as judges— including some of the greatest liberal SC justices, a fact I point out simply because most of the whining about Miers’ background is coming from liberals. (Were we suffering through a Democratic administration rather than suffering through a Republican one, it would be the conservatives whining. Though names may change, the song remains the same.) It is a simple fact of life that since Robert Bork’s confirmation hearings in the ’80s, it has been considered sensible to avoid nominating anyone to the Supreme Court who has too clear a track record. This, of course, can cut both ways; when the first President Bush nominated David Souter to the Court, he probably did not realize he was appointing a liberal.

With a little help from Google and various online biographies, I have compiled a brief list of Supreme Court justices who have served since the Second World War (though some of them were appointed earlier) who, as far as I can tell, had no experience as judges before being appointed to the Supreme Court, along with the years of their service as Supreme Court justices:

• Stanley Forman Reed (1938–1957)
• William O. Douglas (1939–1975)
• Felix Frankfurter (1939–1962)
• Robert H. Jackson (1941–1954)
• Harold Burton (1945–1958)
• Thomas Campbell Clark (1949–1967)
• Earl Warren (1953–1969; Chief Justice the whole time)
• Arthur Goldberg (1962–1965)
• Byron White (1962–1993)
• Abraham Fortas (1965–1969)
• Lewis F. Powell (1972–1987)
• William Rehnquist (1972–2005; Chief Justice, 1986–2005)

Additionally, Justice Hugo Black, who served on the Court from 1937 to 1971, had prior judicial experience only as a local Police Court judge. Police Court is a municipal court, its jurisdiction limited to the most trivial misdemeanors and breaches of municipal ordinances; its trials are usually held before a judge, without a jury. It is not really a criminal court, mostly being occupied with such matters as people who ignore “Keep Off the Grass” signs, dogs not kept on their leashes, and parking tickets. Color me unimpressed.

From the above, we can see that the Supreme Court has, since at least 1938, always had at least one member who had no experience as a judge prior to his nomination to the Court. And in 1953–54, seven of the Supreme Court’s nine justices had had no prior experience: You will note in the list above that justices Reed, Douglas, Frankfurter, Jackson, Burton, Clark, and Warren were all on the Court at that time. Black was there too, so if we ignore his Police Court experience, we are left with Sherman Minton as the only member of the Court at that time who had ever served on any other court.

Lastly, while I do not have the time to dig back further into history in any comprehensive manner, it is worth noting that Louis Brandeis, one of the most important of all Supreme Court justices, had no judicial experience before joining the Supreme Court.

My three latest CD purchases, by coincidence, are all new albums by 60-something British performers who began their recording careers back in the ’60s.

To deal first with the most obvious and most-hyped choice, A Bigger Bang by the Rolling Stones has been widely lauded as their best work since the 1970s. Of course, every Stones album since at least 1989’s Steel Wheels has been celebrated in similar terms, only to be recognized, once the initial excitement died down, as just another fairly forgettable latter-day Stones album, long on craft, short on inspiration. My hopes were up, though, once I read a favorable review penned by former Gang of Four guitarist and Killing Joke producer Andy Gill, who admitted that the album was no masterpiece but said it really was quite good. I more or less agree, though I don’t think I’m quite as enthusiastic as he is. Having listened to A Bigger Bang a few times, I find that only a few of the songs are sticking in my mind. That it is a better album than 1997’s Bridges to Babylon or 1994’s Voodoo Lounge is attributable not so much to more inspired songwriting as to a more authentic attitude. Voodoo was the sound of the Stones trying to sound like themselves twenty years earlier; Babylon was the sound of the Stones trying to be contemporary, with remixes by the then-fashionable Dust Brothers. A Bigger Bang, in contrast, is simply the Stones being themselves, without worrying about what the fans, the record company, or anyone else wants. Rating: 7/10.

Paul McCartney, after sleeping through most of his solo career (with occasional exceptions like 1982’s brilliant Tug of War, largely inspired by the death of John Lennon), seemed to wake up suddenly in 1997 with Flaming Pie, an unexpectedly focused and creative album. I have not heard the last couple of CDs he has put out (1999’s Run Devil Run and 2001’s Driving Rain), but word has it that they have kept the winning streak going. Expectations were thus high for his new album, Chaos and Creation in the Backyard. This album marks a return to the one-man-band concept of his first solo album, McCartney (1970), and his album of synthesizer experiments, McCartney II (1980), but with an interesting difference: For the first time, McCartney has used an outside producer for a one-man-band album. The producer in question is Nigel Godrich, best known for his work with Beck and Radiohead. The choice is an inspired one; Godrich and McCartney work together well, and the resulting album is easily McCartney’s best since Tug of War, and perhaps the best album of his entire post-Beatles career. The lyrics are never profound (this is Paul McCartney, after all), but it is clear that he is trying, without being too self-conscious about it, to express more thoughtful ideas. The album’s real merit, though, is its music, which is strong and inventive throughout. Rating: 9/10.

Al Stewart started his career in the ’60s as an English folk singer. By the end of the decade, he had developed into a first-generation British folk-rocker, and it was in that style that he made his greatest record, 1973’s Past, Present and Future. After that his sound grew more commercial, and he had his greatest success in 1976 with a million-selling record called Year of the Cat, with a Top Ten single of the same name. After one more successful album, his career went into a commercial and artistic tailspin; he made only three albums during the 1980s, none of them very good, with continually decreasing record sales. Attempting to pursue contemporary trends only took him ever further from his roots, resulting, finally, in a rather desperately commercial ’80s rock album (Last Days of the Century) that was neither good ’80s rock nor good Al Stewart. After that, no longer under contract to a major label, he started to recover; 1992’s Rhymes in Rooms was a two-guitar acoustic live album, timed very nicely to coincide with the start of the vogue for “unplugged” recordings; nevertheless, it didn’t sell. Subsequent albums have also sold only to Stewart’s remaining cult audience, but the return to a more acoustic sound seems to have revived his muse. 1995’s Between the Wars, a concept album about the period between 1918 and 1939, was quite good, and his new album, A Beach Full of Shells, is better still. A double meaning of the title is suggested by the cover art, which features not only seashells but also a few of the kind of shells that are loaded into a gun; also visible are a biplane and a British soldier from the first World War, tugging the title towards an image of Allied soldiers storming a French beach. This indicates the somewhat bipolar nature of the album; a few of the songs are historical (“Somewhere in England 1915” being the most direct reference to the military image), while others, following the seashell image, relate to growing older, retiring to a quiet life, and looking back on one’s past. The songs are consistently very good and the inspired musicianship and production make the most of them. Rating: 8/10.

“The Imperial Delusion” by Justin Raimondo is an interesting review of the left-wing background of the current American administration’s “neo-conservatism.”