Main

November 8, 2006

An Alternate Theory On The Election Results

Of course, an alternate explanation for yesterday's events is that we are so insanely confident in our abilities in the War on Terror that we're even willing to put Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in charge of the Congress.

Kind of like playing the second string in a college football blowout.

Garbage time, as it were. With the added mockery of having the misogynistic bastards getting beaten up by a woman. And Nancy Pelosi.

But that's just a theory. Me, I'm stocking up on ammo and potassium iodide, and practicing my conversational Arabic.

October 15, 2006

Crossposted at Goldstein's

Second excerpt from Bill Clinton's autobiography.

From page 272:

. . . Tony Lake's report so worried me, in fact, that I knew we could no longer use half measures in dealing with the North Koreans. It was time to get tough. I called Warren Christopher in. I remember it distinctly, because I usually didn't like to deal with Warren face to face -- he left a smell of mothballs behind him wherever he went.

Warren came in, and I briefed him on my plan. His face went ashen. Well, more ashen than usual.

" I wouldn't advise it," said Christopher. "He's a loose cannon. He might just start a war."

"The Norks need to know we're getting tough on them," I replied. "The question is, do you know where he is right now?"

"Last I heard," said Christopher, "He was cleaning up some two-bit dive outside Kansas City -- a place called the Double Deuce."

I laughed. He always was the best cooler in the business. Just the man to put our Korea policy back on track.

"His wife would know for sure, though," added Christopher.

I picked up the phone. The switchboard operator answered.

"Rosalynn Carter," I said. "Plains, Georgia."

September 29, 2006

Crossposted at Goldstein's, #10

Entry entitled "To What Extent Is Islam Itself the Problem, If Any"

I am travelling, so I haven't had a lot of time to post or to read what has been going on on the Intertubes. But I have been watching the Dean Esmay-Michelle Malkin dustup with a little bit of interest, and it has provoked me to ask the inevitable question: is Islam itself part of the problem?

Consider this statement by Winston Churchill, who was no mean historian. The quote is, unfortunately, couched in the florid Victorian rhetorical excesses of his youth. Churchill was in his twenties when he wrote the book from which it came, and had just returned from the punitive expedition against the Sudan, and probably ought to be, on that account, forgiven somewhat for both its overwrought use of English and the harshness of his assessment:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property either as a child, a wife, or a concubine must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science‹the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

Certainly, to judge it in the light of today's politics, this quote is enough to banish the study of Churchill from the university, whether or not he helped save Western civilization from the Nazis. There are some pretty powerful Victorian stereotypes in that quote, from which anyone can derive that the author's civilization is one in which casual racism is not only practiced, but expected. This quote would keep Churchill from decent society today; but in his day the passage probably passed without comment, except for a harrumph of general agreement.

But what offends Churchill about Islam most in the paragraph, is something interesting -- Churchill is offended that under Islamic law, women are viewed as property. We can argue whether this is because the Victorians preferred their property to be placed on a pedestal rather than walking three steps behind them with downcast eyes, or whether this is because in Churchill, there is a streak of the modern. I like to think that it is the latter; Churchill was not, after all, as judged by his times, a doctrinaire conservative ideologue. Churchill is arguing that Islam's treatment of women is a form of slavery, and therefore Islam must, in some sense, either be reformed or, as he puts it, "until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men", which probably implies both the liberal use of missionaries and the Maxim gun.

I myself am hopeful of reform -- I certainly don't want to think of the horrors that would lie ahead in a struggle against a sixth of the world's population. I think the American system, where we agree, on paper, that there is a creator whom each of us may worship in our own way (or ignore), and each of the many sects of the world's religions agree to live in peace -- where religion is, to an extent, sublimated under a Constitution whose rules come first so that we may disagree peacefully. I think that if Bush's experiment in bringing democracy to the Middle East fails, the results will be dreadful a generation down the road, and we might find ourself engaged in a struggle of a very different kind.

But I ask you -- is there a grain of truth in what Churchill says? And, if so, will Islam always be "a retrogade force", or will it embrace tolerance of outsiders, greater human rights for its pactitioners, and learn to live in peace with the West? Although I do not side with Dean Esmay in his current battle with Michelle, as I think he has charged her, without offering evidence, of damning Islam rather than some of its more extreme adherents, I generally have agreed with him in the past that Islam, per se, is not the problem -- provided it does truly reform its views towards other religions and its own practitioners. What are your thoughts?

September 21, 2006

Crossposted at Goldstein's, #9


Post entitled "Cueing The Left Wing Conspiracy Theorists in 5 . . .4 . . .3 . . ."

Was the Thai coup plotted on board a U.S. aircraft carrier?
Sondhi Boonyarataklin, the Thai army chief who yesterday ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, spent most of this year vowing to keep his troops out of politics.

"The government's rule was widely tainted with corruption,'' Sondhi, 59, said today in a televised three-minute speech to explain the coup. "This created extreme divisions in Thai society as never seen before" . . .

. . .After 22 bank branches were bombed on Aug. 31, Thaksin, 57, publicly blamed Sondhi for being ill-prepared. "Soldiers on the ground there are complaining they don't have enough bulletproof jackets. They've been sharing them,'' he said.

Sondhi, who had spent part of that day on board the USS Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier as a guest of the U.S. Seventh Fleet, retaliated a day later by saying politicians should offer support rather than discouragement.

"Every side should work together as a team, and seriously, to prevent further attacks," he said.

I'm smelling the rustling of tinfoil over this. Very soon we'll be hearing the comparisons to Diem coup and Vietnam. And where are the bulletproof vests? Going to a secret army of KBR operatives, no doubt.

And you can bet that any ties that Karl Rove and Dick Cheney have to State Street Global Investors will be probed following this little nugget in the story . . .

The prime minister is the jockey, but the horse is owned by the king,'' said Craig Scholl, senior portfolio manager at State Street Global Advisors in Boston, who manages more than $40 billion, including Thai shares. "We actually see this as having long-term benefits.''

Maybe the all-seeing eye of Karl Rove saw an arbitrage opportunity?

It's not every day you see a conspiracy theory emerge in such complete form. Well, in these times, that's probably not true. Everything is a conspiracy.

More rich details to lend flavor? Ask and ye shall receive.

The general is a Muslim.

Sondhi, who graduated from Thailand's Chulachomklao Royal Military Academy in 1968, was a surprise choice to head the army because he's a Muslim in a nation where more than 90 percent of the 65 million citizens are Buddhist. In the past month, he clashed with Thaksin over how to handle a Muslim insurgency in southern Thailand that has killed more than 1,200 people since January 2004.

In other words, Thaksin was coming too close to unraveling the secret conspiracy between Al Qaeda and the secret world masters at Hallichimpco McWalbucks, so he was replaced with someone more reliable.

After all, nothing happens in this world without it somehow being the President's fault, and the sun itself wouldn't even rise in the morning if the Neocon Likudniks didn't issue secret orders to make it rise.

Developing . . .

Crossposted at Goldstein's, #8

Entitled "So How's Your Day Going?"

Let me just say that once again, a AAA membership pays for itself. That's how my day is going.

I almost said "that's how I roll" but that would be filled with bitter irony for me at the moment.

September 19, 2006

Crossposted at Goldstein's, #7

Post entitled "Lion of Islam Or Just Another Guy On The Dole?"

I wonder, sometimes, how radicals, who seemingly have nothing better to do than to organize protests and whip up their followers into a frenzy of hate, earn their living. I think sometimes it would be fun to go out and yell at the mob through a bullhorn and fulminate against my enemies, real or imagined.

But if you choose to live a responsible life, you have, well, responsibilities. A family, a mortgage, a car payment -- it all adds up, and eats into the time you have to paint signs, make armbands, gather together with the like-minded, and channel the voices in your head.

Radical British Muslim Cleric Anjem Choudary, who has recently called for the death of Pope Benedict XVI for insulting Islam, apparently has no such worries. According to the Evening Standard, he is a ward of the state.

Despite his hatred of all things British - he says: "If British means adopting British values, then I don't think we can adopt British values. I'm a Muslim living in Britain. I have a British passport, but that's a travel document to me" - he and his family live on state benefits.

[His wife] Rubana is said by friends to claim £1,700 a month in housing benefit and income support while Choudary has also claimed £202 a month in income support.

At today's exchange rate (1.8826 dollars to the pound, last I checked Bloomberg), this means that Choudary and his wife are pulling in $3581 a month, or $42,968 a year.

I guess hate pays. I'd be willing to channel my inner crazy and behave the most outrageous things if I had all day to nurse my grievances. Or, if anyone were willing to pay me. It reminds me a little of the line from Ghostbusters . . .

JANINE: Do you believe in U.F.O.'s, astral projection, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, full-trance mediums, telekinetic movement, black and/or white magic, pyramidology, the theory of Atlantis, the Loch Ness Monster,or in general in spooks, spectres, wraiths, geists and ghosts?

WINSTON: Not really. However, if there's a semi-regular paycheck in it I'll believe anything you say.

What makes this paycheck something less than amusing is that what it is buying the British government. It is buying them nothing but trouble. It would be one thing if the British were paying Choudary $42,968 a year to keep his mouth shut, but instead, they're subsidizing his hate speech. Unlike Winston the Ghostbuster, they're not paying him to believe in what the company believes in. They're paying him to believe whatever he wants, even when his interests are inimical to the people writing the check each month.

Choudary claims he doesn't embrace "British values", but apparently, he embraces the British value of not letting those who are unwilling to find productive work starve. He's perfectly willing to collect his check every month. Not enough pride, I guess, to walk away from that.

September 18, 2006

Crossposted at Goldstein's, #6

Under the heading "Rove, You Magnificent B*stard!

Karl Rove unleashes the most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the neocons. That is, until he develops a bunker-buster version of Ed Asner.

The left-wing celebrity.

Consider the erudite political offerings of Roger Waters, courtesy of Drudge . . .

ROGER WATERS [PINK FLOYD] CONCERT TOUR HITS NORTH AMERICA AND NYC WITH FLYING PIGS, URGING DEM VOTES IN ELECTION, 'IMPEACH BUSH' WRITTEN ON REAR OF PIG FLOATING OVER AUDIENCE... One concertgoer writes: 'Seeing Bush's name written across the pig's arse made me howl'... The pig had graffiti. 'New Yorkers/Don't be led to the slaughter/Vote November 7'... another attendee played off the hit 'Another Brick in the Wall': ''We don't need no thought control,' even from Mr. Waters'...

Another sends a review: 'I attended the Roger Waters 9/15 show at Jones Beach, Wantagh, NY. At one point during the show Waters juxtaposed pictures of the President, Karl Rove, Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher with pictures of Osama bin Laden, Mao Zedong, Stalin, and other world tyrants. Rogers asked whether 'these people [Arabs] are really are enemies'. This took place during his anti-Bush/Blair song 'Leaving Beirut' in which he claimed 'that Texas education must have really f*cked you up' and asked why Tony the 'US poodle/pawn' is a warmongerer'...

Actually, Bush attended prep school at Phillips Andover, before getting a B.A. in History at Yale, and an MBA from the Harvard Business School, all of which are in the bluest of blue states. But I guess Texas is a convenient prop for Waters to bash Bush with, residents of the state presumably being, from an intellectual standpoint, "all hat and no cattle", as a Texan might say. Which is a remarkably bigoted assumption, even for a limousine socialist such as Waters. And Blair as a poodle? Wow. How original. I've never heard that before.

Of course, Roger Waters is something of a B-list celebrity. There comes a point in everyone's life where Dark Side of the Moon and Wish You Were Here no longer seem as brilliant and inspired as they do after a half-dozen bong hits of Blonde Lebanese hash. It's usually the time of life when you have to get a job, and you realize that wallowing in self-pity isn't healthy, or a particularly rewarding career choice, as only a few lucky souls get to make money from the proposition.

Rove is no doubt holding the heavy artillery in reserve for the final days of the campaign. We'll know the final assault has begun when we see the poorly spelled missive from Barbra Streisand, which will be, like the opening bars of Beethoven's Fifth were for the French underground, the definitive signal for the neocon operatives to ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK.

September 16, 2006

Crossposted at Goldstein's, #5

Another entry at Protein Wisdom.

The Benedict XVI story really seems to be polarizing the different guestbloggers there.

Thought I'd provide a link to the full text of Benedict XVI's remarks. I think that they are actually more thoughtful than they are generally being portrayed in the media.

I thought this passage from the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus was particularly relevant:

God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death. . .

To me, that reasoning seems pretty self-evident. Or if it isn't, it is, at least, a pretty reasonable, and civilized stance. If I have a faith, I ought to be able to explain it to you, make my case, and have you see the logic in it, without having to physically threaten you. If I can't, well then we both walk away, hopefully richer for the dialogue. And this, to me, was the central point Benedict was trying to make. To paraphrase, "if we disagree, then I think we can agree that no one needs to die over the disagreement, because that would clearly displease God."

I'm also reminded of the Onion story that ran after the Onion's September 11 hiatus.

"Look, I don't know, maybe I haven't made myself completely clear, so for the record, here it is again," said the Lord, His divine face betraying visible emotion during a press conference near the site of the fallen Twin Towers. "Somehow, people keep coming up with the idea that I want them to kill their neighbor. Well, I don't. And to be honest, I'm really getting sick and tired of it. Get it straight. Not only do I not want anybody to kill anyone, but I specifically commanded you not to, in really simple terms that anybody ought to be able to understand."

Of course, some people aren't taking away that message.

To which I say, "too bad." Christianity has to endure all kinds of criticism and adapt to it, whether the criticism is fair or not. Judaism has had to endure the most vile slurs and conspiracy theories throughout its history. Islam gets a free pass? I'm sorry, but until a few of the crazies get reigned in, and things like the blood libel get taken out of Wahhabist textbooks, I'm going to be as critical of Islam as I want to be.

UPDATE: OK, maybe not textbooks. But the blood libels do get a lot of play in Muslim media.

Crossposted at Goldstein's, #4

My blogfriends the Llama Butchers have been watching the betting activity on the Republican control of the House.

In the last week, the smart money -- well, I don't actually know if it's the smart money, but the money, anyway, has been moving in the direction of the Republicans. Right now, the contract is trading at $.525.

The question is, what's the cause? I leave it to you to decide.

a) War on Terror—Democrats haven’t provided a credible alternative to Bush’s policies,
b) Falling gasoline prices,
c) Generally strong economy,
d) Republicans 5-1 spending advantage over the DNC,
e) The image of Nancy Pelosi with a gavel scares the hell out of everyone.

I think it is a combination, in some degree, of all these things. Which is a great way for me to weasel out of picking the cause. But if you have to pick one of those choices, which would you say it is?

September 15, 2006

Crossposted at Goldstein's, #3

A False Argument

Although I respect both former Secretary of State Colin Powell and Senator John McCain (depite my ongoing series of posts parodying him as a reality-TV Nanny), I think that both of them are making a false argument when it comes to the treatment of Americans as prisoners of war.

McCain has argued that reinterpreting the Geneva Convention would send a message that the United States was no longer following the accepted definitions of Common Article 3, giving other countries and armed groups an excuse to strip international protections from captured U.S. soldiers.
"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," Powell said, adding Bush's proposal "would put our troops at risk."

Let's review the score on how Americans have been treated, in war, since the signing of the Third Geneva Convention, and its predecessor, the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, shall we?

World War II -- widespread torture and malnourishment of American POWs in the Pacific theatre by Imperial Japan. Selective application of Geneva convention protections by Nazi Germany, often dependent on the guidance of the individual field commanders.

Korean War -- widespread torture and brainwashing of American POWs.

Vietnam War -- widespread torture of American POWs.

First Gulf War -- rough treatment of some American prisoners.

War on Terror -- Afghanistan -- brutal mistreatment and summary execution of American Special Forces soldiers.

Iraq War -- mistreatment of American POWs by Saddam's forces; kidnapping, torture, and summary execution of American soldiers by Iraqi insurgents.

I would ask Secretary Powell and Senator McCain, given the history of our enemies' noncompliance with the Third Geneva Convention, what exactly it is we're losing by making some reservations in our interpretation of it? I think we ought to apply the Conventions on a reciprocal basis -- we shall adhere to it provided our enemies do. And, we shall only do that for fellow signatories of the convention.

For terrorist groups whose opening salvos against us were war crimes (bombing of embassies, attacking a warship in a neutral port, hijacking civilian airliners and using the airliners to kill civilians) I think it is ludicrous for them to expect, or for us to offer, pay, uniforms, red cross packages, cigarettes, or the other amenities we might offer to the soldiers of signatory nation states with whom we find ourselves at war.

UPDATE: I'm still working my way around Jeff's Expression Engine software, being used to the quirky Movable Type which I use on my site, so I didn't realize that "Quick Saving" was the same thing as publishing, and I didn't get to address the "other" side of the debate, which is torture. I think the measures the Administration has used in Guantanamo are appropriate. I don't consider those measures to be torture, and I think they are necessary tools to help keep American civilians safe. If we were fighting a nation state and a Geneva signatory, I would not consider these things to be appropriate. Our enemy pursues a strategy that openly embraces war crimes as a routine tool of warfare. I have no trouble using waterboarding, loud music, cold rooms, or humiliation if it saves civilian lives. Torture -- by which I mean actual torture, in which lasting, physical damage is done -- I see as generally repugnant, and could only see it used in the extremely rare case (the ticking nuke under the city scenario, if you will). I also find Alan Dershowitz's argument for "torture warrants", in such extreme cases, to have some merit. I think I'm pretty much alone in that regard.

September 14, 2006

Crossposted at Goldstein's, #2

My second post, guest-blogging at Jeff's place . . .

Wilkommen, Bienvenue, Welcome!

Oh, those subtle Europeans . . .

Theatregoers in the German capital Berlin walked out of a controversial play about Princess Diana that showed her in bed with two Down's Syndrome men while the Queen was portrayed by a circus dwarf.

"Good job that I hadn’t eaten beforehand because otherwise I would have thrown up," wrote one theatre critic after watching the opening night of the play at the Volksbuehne Theatre.

Wow. replace the phrase "gag a maggot" in my vernacular with a new expression -- "Enough to make a German theatre critic throw up."

Just why Diana was in bed with two Down's Syndrome men, or why an actor shaved his pubic hair on stage – or indeed who he was meant to portray – was never made clear.

Several people left their seats after an actress portraying Camilla had blood thrown on her.

"It lasted two hours and felt like 24," wrote the critic for the tabloid B.Z. "I simply didn’t understand a single thing about it," said Joerg Hoffmanm, who left after 12 minutes.

Philistines. If you need it to be explained to you what the ritual scrotum-shavng means, or why it is a necessity that Camilla Parker Bowles have blood sprayed on her, then I guess it's obvious that you'll never understand my deeper, more controversial works . . .

Crossposted at Goldstein's, #1

Yes, yours truly was fortunate enough to have Jeff Goldstein make him one of his squad of guest-bloggers at Protein Wisdom while Jeff house hunts, and writes a screenplay.

Here's my first submission. Those of you who read Jeff's blog will probably get it, those of you who don't will probably think I've lost my mind.

red pills found behind the sofa cushions, guestblogging . . .

The 'dillo thought it was a good idea. Would loosen me up, he said, take the edge off. Not everyday a man gets a guestblogging gig in the big leagues, and there's no shame in a little GlaxoSmithKline courage from time to time, he told me. He was sympathetic, ingratiating, even -- but I sensed behind all his friendliness there was something he wanted. From time to time, he looked nervously over his shoulder -- or what passes for a shoulder in the genus Dasypus -- as if he were half expecting someone or some thing to be there. But when I called him on it he said it was just paranoia -- an unfortunate side effect of nostrums not properly peer-reviewed by GSK's stodgy, old-school clinicians, who were naturally wary of derivatives of the N arachidonoyl 2 hydroxyethylamide family. Perfectly safe, the 'dillo reassured me, provided I was in the company of people I trusted.

Jeff being away, we were in the living room, whose furniture had been somewhat abruptly pushed against the wall. The stereo was blasting the B side of In The Court of the Crimson King at decibel levels more than sufficient to deafen the most resolute Taliban operative. A green baize table had been prepared, and we sat down at it, the 'dillo wearing a Hawaiian shirt, a pair of decrepit cutoff cargo pants, and a green eyeshade. He was smoking what appeared to me to be a Hoyo de Monterrey Petit Robusto, but that was conjecture on my part, as he did not offer me one. We were joined by the Sea Monkey King, for whom the selection of music was either a tribute from the 'dillo, or a none-too-subtle form of mockery. I wasn't certain of which, as it was all I could do to keep the Jack Daniels in my field of vision, and in my unsteady hands as it periodically transited from the felt to my lips, seemingly of its own accord.

The 'dillo was all glib chatter and insincere smiles as he shuffled the deck in his almost human paws, flashing the cards between them. He had spent a month in a hotel room, he told us, with a Reno croupier who moonlighted as a thousand-dollar-a-night call girl, holding her in the throes of passion, and then, when that wore thin, at gunpoint until she had taught him everything she knew: riffles, weaves, Mongeans, Faros, and overhands.

"Just deal," said the Sea Monkey King. He then looked at me and said the only words he would utter in my direction the entire evening. "You can't believe a single word he says."

We played a few warm-up hands -- Texas Hold 'Em, as none of us were in a state of mind for anything more complicated. The 'dillo then insisted we play for both cash and clothing, with which I felt more than a little uncomfortable, but as the Sea Monkey King had merely rolled his eyes and said "Fine" I felt I had no choice but to go along. The 'dillo promptly lost the first hand, overbidding jacks and tens, while the Sea Monkey King held three eights. Stripping off his Hawaiian shirt, the dillo revealed, along with a number of strange, interlaced scars on his chest and torso, that he was carrying -- a beat up Kahr K9 in a Galco Miami Classic rig.

Without saying a word, the Sea Monkey King pulled a K-bar from an ankle sheath and laid it on the table next to him. The expression on his red face was one of sadness -- but also of palpable disgust. Or so I imagined it, for who can read the emotions of Artemia nyos with any degree of certitude?

"Hey, guys, this is just a friendly game, right?" I asked.

The 'dillo smiled. He then asked me if I had ever "been in the shit." Because, he said, pointing at his scars, he had been. Facing reds of all kinds, all around the globe, probably before I was even born. He asked to see my scars. Thinking it might defuse the situation, I rolled up a pant leg to show him the dime-sized hole where, in my youth, I had left a piece of my calf on a barbed-wire fence on a training range at Grafenwoehr.

But this made the 'dillo sad, and more than a little maudlin. I had to understand, he said, where he was coming from. Black ops in the 80s on five different continents, missions of such deep deniability that even his private line to Director Casey couldn't save him if the principalities and powers within the Company who opposed him decided to step on his airhose, as they did, from time to time, staking out their turf, preparing for the Apocalypse that would follow the old man's demise. He was loyal, he did his job, and now he was just cut loose, turned out with the garbage.

"Spare us," said the Sea Monkey King. "We've all seen First Blood, and the truth is, you mainly rode a desk, stateside. Fetched coffee for us at Langley when we came back shot up and they put us on a desk to read diplomatic mail from Kirghizstan while we got our lives back in order. So spare us the cheap theatrics, Gielgud, and deal the fucking cards."

At that point, the 'dillo drew.

But nothing came of it, as we were all knocked to the ground. An expolsion, an acrid whiff of smoke, and 8 million candela of pure retina-burning fury filled the Denver apartment. I lay on the floor, face down, spread-eagled, with not a muscle twitching.

"Enough," said a surprisingly high-pitched voice.

I turned my head the few millimeters I dared and saw the hem of a dark blue pea coat.

Developing . . .