my.bicycle

Labels: games

Labels: games

Labels: games

Labels: games

Labels: music

Labels: games

Labels: music

“What if we use a catapult?” (animated .gif)
“FATOOOMCH!” (animated .gif)
(thanks, slinka)

Labels: music

Labels: games

Labels: games

What’s the best kind of editor to work with?

ENNIS: The ones who aren’t company men. The smart ones have a sort of attitude where they say this place has its good points and bad points, and if you come with me, I’ll keep the idiots off your back. Then there are people who get idealistic and romantic about this stuff, but at the end of the day, they’re using these characters to sell donuts and coffee and burgers and other such shit. So when they’re talking about protecting modern American icons, you do have to look askance at that.
I went into Dunkin Donuts to get my 710-milliliter-more-than-a-fucking-pint of coffee — whoever came up with that is a fucking genius — and I saw a life-size cutout of Hugh Jackman and Halle Berry shilling something called Wolverine’s Redberry Rampage. And I think, There’s my modern American icons being treated with the respect they deserve. [laughs]

Labels: games

Beginning this Tuesday, January 28, 2003, I will offer an “On War” commentary each week until the Iraq business is over and done. I suspect that may be awhile.

Who am I? At present, I am a center director at the Free Congress Foundation. But in 1976 I began the debate over maneuver warfare that became a central part of the military reform movement of the 1970’s and 1980’s. The U.S. Marine Corps finally adopted maneuver warfare as doctrine in the late ’80’s (I wrote most of their new tactics manual).

In 1989, I began the debate over Fourth Generation warfare—war waged by non-state entities—which is what paid us a visit on September 11, 2001. The article I co-authored then for the Marine Corps Gazette was formally cited last year by al Quaeda, who said, “This is our doctrine.” My Maneuver Warfare Handbook, published in 1985, is now used by military academies all over the world, and I lecture internationally on military strategy, doctrine and tactics.

In this series, I propose to look at what is happening—with Iraq, North Korea, Afghanistan and other outposts of the new American imperium—from the standpoint of military theory. Hopefully, that will enable us all to make sense out of the bits and pieces we get each day as “news.” One of the most important things military theory offers to this end is a framework developed by Col. John Boyd, USAF, who was the greatest military theorist America ever produced. Col. Boyd said that war is fought at three levels: moral, mental and physical. The moral level is the most powerful, the physical level is the least powerful, and the mental level is in between. The American way of war, which is Second Generation warfare—there will be more on the Four Generations of Modern War in future commentaries—is physical: “putting steel on target,” as our soldiers like to say.

But how does the coming war with Iraq look at the moral level? Here, the U.S. seems to be leading with its chin. Why? Because the Administration in Washington has yet to come up with a convincing rationale for why the United States should attack Iraq.
-- Interesting insight from a unique perspective, weekly from William S. Lind On War Archive (via William Gibson’s blog)

Labels: nsfw