Amazon rocks. In-Store Pickup rocks hard.

They got this new deal now - you find the book you want, put your zip code into the In-Store Pickup box, and if you're lucky it tells you that your book is available at your local bookstore - at the Amazon price.

No shipping costs. No waiting for the UPS truck. You just click, and go pick it up.

So I click, and I go, and I get my book. Fifteen bucks. Ordinary people in that same store are paying twenty-five bucks for the same frigging book.

Cheaper. Faster. Better for me.

How is this possible? It's possible, because the folks at Borders aren't stupid. Sure, they'd rather sell it to me for $25, but they figure that once I'm already at the Amazon web page they are pretty much going to lose this sale anyway. Why not make me a last-minute offer? After all, even small profit is a hell of a lot better than nothing.

The folks at Amazon aren't stupid, either. They probably get a buck right off the top, with no need for inventory, no need to pay some guy in the shipping department, no need to worry about returns. They basically send two emails, and the deal is done. If I got paid a buck every time I sent two emails, I'd be a fucking millionaire. They got themselves a nice little gig there.

And me? Yeah, that's the beauty part: I come out best of all.

I find my book in seconds, and I know its in stock and waiting right there for me. I don't even have to look for it on the fucking shelf! I get it dirt cheap, too - cheaper than I'd ever get it before - and I get it right now.

Cheaper. Faster. Better for me. That's the kind of capitalism I'm talking about!

Here's another thing - a few months ago I started buying used books from Amazon, and that's worked out great, too. I usually go for the nearly-new volumes, mostly paperbacks, and they average about 10 bucks a pop after shipping. I've bought, and read, more books in the last six months than I have in the last six years.

That's good for Amazon. It's good for the individual book sellers. It's good for me. It's good for the whole goddamn world.

Karl Marx can kiss my fat monkey ass. We got this shit figured out.

comment

Before:

After:

comment

In a previous post, I described a potentially serious problem for the Kerry campaign, and speculated about how Kerry might respond. (In brief, the story involved Kerry's presence at a meeting where a plot to assassinate six US Senators was seriously discussed; Kerry categorically denied being at this meeting, but newly-uncovered FBI documents place him at the scene).

Thanks to Daily Pundit (via IT) we now have Kerry's response. Are you ready for this?

"I don't remember".

I'm paraphrasing, of course. Even this mendacious denial was delivered indirectly, via campaign spokesman David Wade:

"John Kerry had no personal recollection of this meeting 33 years ago."

Now remember, this was the meeting where John Kerry resigned his leadership position in the VVAW because his colleagues planned the largest mass assassination in American history. Kerry fought against the plan, and quit on the spot rather than be associated with these people any further. This meeting lasted three days.

Is there even a single person in America who believes he does not recall this? Do you suppose that even his own staff believes it?

The funny thing is, I could forgive for this if he came clean, and I suspect a lot of his supporters would, too. It was a long time ago, and things were really crazy then; Kerry spoke up and did the right thing, and no real harm ever came of it. The only thing you could hold against him is the fact he didn't rat out his friends, and even that can be forgiven if you believed that he knew they'd never really do it.

But now he's offered up this obvious lie and all his supporters are supposed to go along with it, even to be a party to it. Just say whatever it takes to win, John. We don't care.

All the pretense is gone. I suppose that will be a good thing, in the end.

comment

This is seriously pissing me off:

A little help, here?

The answer is in the comment section. Thanks, guys!

comment

This one has been simmering for a while, and now it looks like it's finally broken into the open. Steve at Little Tiny Lies has a nice summary (heavily edited here):

...Kerry was a leader--not just a member--of Vietnam Veterans Against the war, a group that fought to end the Vietnam War back in the seventies ...In November of 1971, VVAW had a meeting, and they seriously discussed assassinating several senators in order to get attention for their cause.

...Kerry's campaign spokesman, David Wade, claims Kerry wasn't at the meeting... Wade claims Kerry resigned from VVAW in the summer of 1971, long before the assassination plot was discussed.

The problem? The FBI had the whole place under surveillance, and they reportedly have files showing that Kerry was present at this meeting. There are also several witnesses, some of whom are Kerry supporters, who also claim that he was there.

Now, Kerry, to his credit, supposedly argued forcefully against the assassination plan, and quit on the spot because of it. So why would he lie about being at this meeting?

Because he doesn't want to face questions like this:

SENATOR KERRY, IF YOU KNEW WHAT WAS BEING DISCUSSED AT THAT MEETING, DID YOU REPORT THIS INFORMATION TO AUTHORITIES, AND IF SO, WHEN?

IF NOT, WHY NOT?

This is a serious problem. It's going to be big news soon.

So how's he going to get out of it? I can already imagine a few different approaches:

1) "Yes, I was there, and no, I didn't report it. Those were difficult times and I was a much younger man. I knew they would never follow through with such an outrageous plan, and I knew I could not remain as their colleague."

This is good, probably good enough to get him out of trouble. It's honest, forthright, and unambiguous. My call? He's not man enough to do this. He doesn't have the character to pull it off.

2) "How DARE you impugn my patriotism! This sort of guilt-by-association is the hallmark of the republican smear machine. I was in Vietnam! I don't have to apologize for anything."

This is a distinct possibility - it makes him look strong, tough, and it dodges the issue. Just the sort of crap I'd expect.

3) "It's all a lie - the evidence is a lie, the witnesses are all lying, the whole thing is preposterous".

This is what we are seeing now, from his supporters. Won't hold up to scrutiny, though.

Stay tuned...

comment

Early reports suggest that the Socialists will be winning the elections in Spain today.

At the risk of oversimplifying the situation, we are seeing a contest between those who would pursue the war on terror, and those who would withdrawal from it. The appeasers appear to have won.

The people who delivered the bombs last week will have won, too. Congratulations to you all.

I predict two direct consequences of this. First, if these results hold, Spain will have bought itself another decade of violent harassment from Muslim extremists. I expect that we will soon hear demands from the terrorists that those arrested for the blasts be released, and why not? This sort of extortion is clearly effective, so it will be employed over and over again. This is what happens when you are weak, and you refuse to fight back.

Second, I expect a similar attempt to influence our election this fall. Frankly, I'd be shocked if the terrorists were to take any other lesson away from this experience. They surely imagine that they have found a valuable insight into the workings of Western democracy, that nothing brings the anti-war voters to the polls like a fresh massacre on their own soil.

Of course, they would misjudge us terribly, but they have gravely misjudged us before.

comment

Until a few minutes ago, I wasn't so sure. There is good evidence that ETA was solely responsable for this attack, and there is also good evidence to suggest that Al Queda was involved. Others have speculated that both groups may have combined forces, which seems odd, considering the Catholic heritage of the Basque people.

There is still nothing definitive yet, but in my mind, the last piece just fell into place:

In Spain: ETA and Al-Qaeda Forge New Anti-EU Alliance (2001)

The Basque terrorist organization ETA and bin Laden's al-Qaeda cells have joined forces. Their shared goal: to organize and carry out an attack on the EU meeting scheduled for March 2002 in Barcelona, according to two Spanish publications, Tiempo and El Mundo.

According to the reports, which have been confirmed by Italian and French media, representatives of the two terrorist organizations have already met together three times in Brussels in December 2000; in Malaga, Spain in February 2001; and in Barcelona last July.

According to the European reports, the terrorists have planned a suicide attack on the meeting that would entail the use of five car bombs provided by ETA, and delivered by five al-Qaeda suicide drivers. European authorities consider this news credible, and have disclosed that Mohammed Atta--one of the terrorists responsible for the early September attack on the World Trade Center--may have also attended the July meeting between ETA and al-Qaeda in Barcelona.

In its report, Tiempo revealed that, thanks to a tip-off by US Navy intelligence, Spanish authorities were able to prevent another al-Qaeda attack last December. This one would have involved striking American aircraft carriers with suicide vessels filled with the deadly explosive C-4. The attack--like the assault on the USS Cole in a Yemeni port--was scheduled to take place as the two aircraft carriers would have readied to moor at NATO's Rota navy base near Cadiz. The suicide motor boats would have departed from the nearby coast of Morocco, a country with a significant Muslim population.

[...]

I've said repeatedly that an attack like this would be a bellwether. The bad guys have regrouped, and reconstituted their ability to project force over distance. They had been unable to do this for over a year.

If they really have rebuilt their ability to logistically support their operations overseas, they will hit us again, here in the US, at their earliest opportunity. They will not wait for us to find them and break them up before they can act.

We are still at war, folks, and we are right in the thick of it.

comment

I was cleaning out some old links when I ran into this old post, which refers to this one, which made my blood run cold when I first read it. It still does.

The short version of the story is that terrorists are known to have trained to capture small groups of civilians, and to kill all of them. The author, (correctly, in my opinion) suggest that the only response to this sort of problem is an instantaneous, desperate counterattack.

People pretty much agree that this is the right thing to do in an airplane, even in the face of seemingly overwhelming odds, but there is less consensus about it in other situations. A barehanded counterattack against ordinary criminals is arguably not a wise decision, but terrorists are an entirely different matter. Such a decision is a personal one, of course. You, and perhaps those around you, will live and die by the consequences of your actions, either way.

The author does pose an interesting question - do you know how to place an AK into operation? Well, do you? It's quite simple, really.

Here's a typical AK-style rifle:

If you want to own a rifle like this, you'll need to learn to store it, shoot it, and maintain it safely, and that's quite a bit more than I can cover right now. Owning a gun, like driving a car, can be a perfectly safe and prudent thing to do, but it requires a minimum of competent training lest you become a deadly hazard to the human race.

However, if you just want to pry an AK from the cold, dead hands of an attacker and make it go bang, that's easy. Assuming it's already loaded, there are just two steps:

First, we need to release the safety (it's the big lever there, shown in yellow). The back of the lever is fixed, and the front part moves up and down. You press on the red dot there, where there is a little shelf for your finger. Push it DOWN, all the way DOWN. Think of pushing it towards the trigger, to make the trigger work.

Chances are that the gun can be fired now. If you want to be certain (and you do want to be certain) you'll need to perform the next step:

See that yellowish part? That's called the bolt. The bolt slides back and forth inside the gun, and there's a big spring behind it to keep it pushed all the way to the front. We need to draw the bolt all the way to the rear of the weapon, and then let it go. The little red part there is a handle that sticks out the side of the bolt about a half-inch or so, and that's the part you grab. You can just hook a finger over that lever and pull it back, just as hard as you can. When the bolt goes all the way back, it stops, and your finger can just slide right off. The spring will push the bolt forward again. Don't try to ease it back, and don't try to help push it forward, either. Just slam it back as hard as you can, and let the spring take care of the rest.

If the previous owner had already performed this operation, an unfired bullet will pop out of the side of the rifle and land on the floor when you do this. That's OK, just ignore it.

Now you're ready to go. The rifle will fire one shot each time the trigger is pulled. There is no need to repeat any of these steps, you just keep pulling the trigger until the weapon is empty.

If you've had some experience with other firearms and know how to handle them safely, this ought to be enough for you. If you have not had experience but you think this stuff is worth knowing, the time to get that experience is now. Leave a comment or send me an email and I'll help hook you up with a qualified instructor and help you get started out right. Learning to shoot is safe, it's reasonably inexpensive, and it's a hell of a lot of fun.

It makes it much easier to fight back, too.

comment

Kids today... young women running around with their pants down below their hips and their thongs showing, clear as day. If I believed in god I might believe that my personal prayers had finally been answered, but most people my age only seem to be appalled. Surely this suggests some sort of serious social breakdown, heralding another generation of unwanted children, poorly raised by their oversexualized teenaged mothers.

Well, it might, if teen pregnancy rates not recently fallen to record lows. In fact, teen pregnancies - not the birth rate, mind you, but pregnancies - have been falling steadily for years. Better birth control is part of the reason, but another large factor, surprisingly, is that these kids are having less sex in their teen years than we did. As a result, abortion rates have been falling as well.

Why do I mention it? Because one of my favorite blogs, Marginal Revolution, offers this terrific post suggesting one reason why it may have occurred.

Lots of people won't like it. Of course, that doesn't mean it isn't true.

You've all heard about the new Iraqi Interim Constitution, but you probably haven't had a chance to see it for yourselves. USSC found a copy here, and it's remarkable stuff. Here's a few excerpts:

The budding economist in me is particularly pleased by this section, which provides for stable, transferable property rights - the foundation for a free market economy:

Overall, this is an incredibly ambitious step; if they manage to get even half of this right, they will have accomplished nothing less than a democratic revolution. Getting it even half right will be difficult, and I can promise that there will be many setbacks, and many tough challenges ahead. I can also point out that never, to my knowledge, has any Arab people had an opportunity even remotely like this one. They are entitled to their shot.

Freedom isn't free, and it never has been. You've got to earn it, and you've got be worthy of the prize.

This is the crux, right here - the fate of that last line is the fate of their nation:

On a related note, here's a bit of happy news:

American casualties have been steadily declining since they peaked last November (414, including 82 dead). The casualties went down to 306 in December, 234 in January and 167 last month. In February there were twenty American soldiers killed in action, or .79 per day. This was the first month, since the war began, that the troops killed fell to less than one a day.

No, it's not over, but this may soon be remembered as "The Worlds Shortest Quagmire".

comment

Until a few hours ago, I actually had some sympathy for Martha Stewart. Insider trading is a rather poorly-defined offense, and Stewart was charged only for lying about her actions, not for the actual sales of her stock. It seemed to me that she had been railroaded a bit, and that this was the sort of case where a little prosecutorial discretion might have been appropriate; I felt that she should have been offered an easier way out.

As it turns out, she was offered such a deal. She was just too goddamn arrogant to accept it:

Newsweek has learned that the Feds gave Martha Stewart an opportunity to avoid prison. Federal prosecutors offered Stewart a deal last April to cop to one count of making a false statement, say several sources familiar with the offer. She would have received probation and could continue working at her company, they say. But she refused to plead guilty to a felony, and a defense source says the Feds couldn't guarantee she would stay out of jail.

And federal investigators say she could have avoided the entire mess if she had confessed in the beginning. Had she admitted wrong doing in early 2002, she could have gotten off with a $200,000 fine and no jail time...

Keep in mind, Stewart was worth hundreds of millions of dollars; at the time, she probably made well over $200k per week in interest alone. She could have 'fessed up, paid her little fine and gone on with her life, but no....

Instead, we get an elaborate, bullshit story that falls apart on the witness stand, burying both her and her broker; worst of all, her shareholders, who were guilty of nothing more than trusting this idiot, lose millions of dollars virtually overnight.

Now, I can forgive greed, especially among ambitious people who have worked hard and built something of great value; greed is part of that equation, and to the extent that greed drives creation, it is a small evil. I can forgive simple dishonestly, having honed that art myself on more than one occasion, and I can forgive a lingering contempt for authority, too; I'd be a hypocrite if I told you any different.

But stupidity? That's harder to forgive. Put your asshat on, and my patience runs out pretty quick.

How many lawyers and advisors do you suppose this woman had? How many of them tried to convince her to own up right away, or to at least accept the deal she was offered? I'd bet these wasn't one of them who suggested she take her chances in federal court. Hell, even I know better than that.

She took a sucker bet, and she lost, and all the people who trusted her lost, too. That doesn't make her a bad person, but it does mean that she deserves what she gets.

comment

comment

Ithaca, NY is a pretty liberal town, sometimes annoyingly so. When I heard that Ithaca's new mayor, Carolyn Peterson, was about to wade into the gay marriage debate I figured we'd have another fiasco on our hands.

Instead, Mayor Peterson devised a plan that is actually humane, democratic, prudent and fair. I was shocked.

Same-sex couples in Ithaca will be allowed to apply for marriage licenses, and the City Clerk will forward their applications to the state. Of course, under current state law these applications will be denied, but then these couples will be in an excellent position to sue the state of New York on constitutional grounds. The city of Ithaca has pledged to be a party to such lawsuits, on the side of the gay couples.

Nobody is breaking the law. The people responsible, on both sides of the dispute, are being held accountable, and a definitive judicial review is almost a certainty. Nobody is ever held in legal limbo, and most importantly, it's an elected official, not an appointed one, that has taken lead here.

It's almost as if we are all acting like grown-ups about this. It's incredible.

I give big credit to Mayor Peterson for crafting this thoughtful solution to a contentious, unavoidable issue. I wish the mayor of San Francisco has done the same.

comment