?

Log in

larvatus prodeo Below are the 30 most recent journal entries recorded in the "Michael Zeleny" journal:

[<< Previous 30 entries]

December 31st, 2025
12:10 pm

[Link]

HIC LOCUS EST UBI MORS GAUDET SUCCURRERE VITAE
Welcome to the online journal of larvatus. Stable texts are open to the general public. Squibs and sallies, schemes and stratagems, jaunts and taunts, are restricted to friends. Please note that locked texts subject to third party copyright are provided to my friends under the doctrine of fair use, subject to implied consent by all their readers to abstain from redistribution. Reciprocal friendship shall be extended to all sane, sound, and disinterested personae. Comments and critique are always welcome. Marriage proposals and death threats shall be entertained in the order received.
    The House Rules are few and lax. All anonymous comments are initially screened. They shall be revealed or answered at your host’s discretion. All signed comments are initially presumed welcome, until and unless they cause an affront to your host. Thereupon their author shall become banned from further contributions to this journal. Otherwise, anything goes.
                        SAY WHAT?

                                                                                         ÇA ?
                                                                      Tristan Corbière


A treatise? You don’t say! I haven’t treated squat!
A study? Slothful wretch, my culture fetid rot.
A volume? Random heap, sheets stacked in disarray.
Good copy? Not with me enmired in the fray.

A poem? Not today, my lyre is being cleaned.
A book? Of fusty tomes far better to be weaned.
A song? Would that it were, my ear is made of tin.
Fun pastime? Sordid den, dire boredom dwells within.

A cadence? Rhythmic flow is broken by dull grind.
A product? I divide what others multiplied.
A story? Handicapped, my lame and laggard Muse.
Clear proof? My mind is fraught by grief and lit by booze.

High fashion? Wealth and style inform nowhere my dress.
Grandstanding or grand mal? My spasms fail to impress.
Evicted from the hall, I lurk behind the stage,
In transit, poised to choose: a joy house or a cage.

Too old? But to retire, my tenure won’t suffice.
Too young? My hectic life will rid me of this vice.
A sage, a slob, an ace, a master, and a clown,
A stud without a flock, a king without a crown.

THIS is without pretense, and yet a blatant pose.
It’s life and nothing but, confessed in deathless prose.
A masterpiece? Could be, I never made one yet!
A farce? A waste? A bomb? Decide and place your bet!

I bet… and I shall sign herewith my humble name;
My child shall overcome each tainted libel claim.
Through chance it will prevail, its fate a stroke of luck
Art knows me not at all — and I don’t give a fuck.

                      — traduced by MZ, 6 September 2005


free counters

Tags: , , , , , ,

(60 comments | Leave a comment)

10:00 am

[Link]

for the anonymous troll
Over sixteen twenty years online, I have received a broad spectrum of threats and pitches, and entertained a commensurate range of slurs and plaudits. This experience has crystallized two iron laws of online communications.

The first law is a corollary of Occam’s razor. No matter what you are promised or threatened on the Internet, the most you will get out of it is oral ministrations. In other words, there is no downside in moving virtual bluster to realspace. Yonder puffed-out sock puppet is as unlikely to escalate its verbiage to physical damage, as the heiress of an African potentate, to bestow her commission upon Americans paying their facilitation fees. By contrast, that virtual fellatrix yearning to reward your eloquence with expert suction may well come through as promised, especially if you overlook minor discrepancies ranging from mien to gender.

The second law of Internet intercourse is a corollary of the first. Only a clueless newbie responds personally to an anonymous troll. To illustrate its application, whenever one of the latter kind feels the urge to share its thoughts about anything but one of the former, it should take them instead to someone who can relate to its bogus persona. It makes no difference whether a figment of this sort touts itself as a public intellectual in mufti, or poses as a skank that services barnyard livestock for spare change. In the immortal words of Jack Nicholson, sell crazy someplace else, we’re all stocked up here.

A final notice to the insistent incognito. When you surpass words in punishing my excesses, make sure that your hostile deeds leave me unfit to retaliate. My reckoning will define the remainder of your life. It’s happened to your betters before. Don’t let it happen to you.

Tags: , ,

(4 comments | Leave a comment)

February 7th, 2016
12:03 pm

[Link]

My tweets
Read more...Collapse )

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

February 6th, 2016
12:02 pm

[Link]

My tweets
Read more...Collapse )

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

12:14 am

[Link]

kolbe v. hogan


“For perspective, we note that in 2012, the number of AR and AK-style weapons manufactured and imported into the United States was more than double the number of Ford F-150 trucks sold, the most commonly sold vehicle in the United States.”

“In our view, ‘the right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right’ to possess component parts necessary to make the firearms operable. […] This reasoning applies to the magazines in question. […] In short, magazines and other forms of ammunition have long been recognized as arms.”

“The proper standard under Helleris whether the prohibited weapons and magazines are ‘typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes’ as a matter of history and tradition, not whether the magazines are often actually employed in self-defense incidents.”

Heller refers to “dangerous” and “unusual” conjunctively, suggesting that even a dangerous weapon may enjoy constitutional protection if it is widely employed for lawful purposes, i.e., not unusual.”

“To select the proper level of scrutiny, we consider ‘the nature of the conduct being regulated and the degree to which the challenged law burdens the right.’”

“(The right to bear arms, however venerable, is qualified by what one might call the ‘who,’ ‘what,’ ‘where,’ ‘when,’ and ‘why.’)”

“At stake here is a ‘basic right,’ McDonald, 561 U.S. at 767, ‘that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted … among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty,’ id. at 778.”

“… under the Seventh Circuit’s view, a significant restriction on a fundamental right might be justified by benefits that are quite literally imagined into existence.”

“The meaning of the Constitution does not depend on a popular vote of the circuits and it is neither improper nor imprudent for us to disagree with the other circuits addressing this issue. We are not a rubber stamp. We require strict scrutiny here not because it aligns with our personal policy preferences but because we believe it is compelled by the law set out in Heller and Chester.”
William Byrd Traxler, Jr., Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit since 2009;

nominated to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1991;

nominated to the Fourth Circuit by President Bill Clinton in 1998;

Kolbe v. Hogan (4th Cir. 2016)

Tags: , , , , ,

(Leave a comment)

February 5th, 2016
02:17 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(1 comment | Leave a comment)

February 2nd, 2016
12:03 pm

[Link]

My tweets
Read more...Collapse )

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

January 31st, 2016
12:02 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

January 30th, 2016
12:04 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

January 29th, 2016
12:02 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

January 28th, 2016
12:03 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

January 26th, 2016
12:03 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

January 25th, 2016
12:03 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

January 24th, 2016
12:03 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

January 23rd, 2016
12:03 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

January 22nd, 2016
12:02 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

January 20th, 2016
03:41 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

January 18th, 2016
12:03 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

January 17th, 2016
04:05 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

January 15th, 2016
04:51 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

January 13th, 2016
03:51 am

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

January 8th, 2016
12:58 pm

[Link]

current events






All hail virile Muslim civil disobedience
of effeminate Western infringement
of their inalienable right to rape infidel women at will!

Tags: , , , , , , ,

(Leave a comment)

December 19th, 2015
09:00 pm

[Link]

peace on earth
“If your intention is to stop terrorism, do not try to blame the whole population of Muslims for it because it cannot stop terrorism. It will radicalise more terrorists.”
Malala Yousafzai, 15 December 2015

We have before us an interesting example of a political argument, proceeding from a prediction of fact to a prescription of policy. Let us take them in order.

“If your intention is to stop terrorism”, you are an idiot. Religious terrorism, inaugurated by the Jews two millennia ago, has been with us ever since. Modern state terrorism, consecrated on 7 May 1794 by Maximilien Robespierre, has integrated itself into the arsenals of democracy along with lesser regimes. There is no reason to expect the Global War on Terrorism, construed as a repugnant military and/or political tactic, to succeed, where the War on Poverty, construed as a regrettable human condition, and the War on Drugs, construed as a class of noisome substances, have failed. In particular, as Muslim terrorism continues unabated, why “[should we] not try to blame the whole population of Muslims for it”? The causal effects of organized religion are grounded in doctrine and witnessed by fact. Whether or not certain charges leveled against this or that religion amount to a just indictment or merit dismissal as scurrilous slander, must therefore be determined through analysis and observation. Are the Catholics cannibals as self-confessed consumers of the true Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist? This is mostly a matter of doctrinal analysis. Do the Jews sacrifice Gentile babies to consume their blood in their Passover repasts? This is mostly a matter of factual investigation. Does the Quran require Muslims to kill infidels? This is a question equally dependent on doctrine and fact. Foreclosing its study in deference to political reasons serves no real interests at stake.

To the extent that the question of the Muslim mandate to kill infidels can be answered in the affirmative, can the ensuing blame of the former by the latter stop terrorism? Even assuming that such blame is bound to radicalize more Muslim terrorists, there is no reason to conclude that it cannot simultaneously precipitate an overwhelming repudiation of terrorist violence in the remainder of the Muslim community. On the other hand, even supposing that such radicalization overwhelms the Muslim community at large, yields no practical reason to abstain from factually warranted blame, political censure, or even military extirpation of Muslim doctrines and practices.

In his Life of Caesar, 15.3, Plutarch observes: “For although it was not full ten years that he waged war in Gaul, he took by storm more than eight hundred cities, subdued three hundred nations, and fought pitched battles at different times with three million men, of whom he slew one million in hand to hand fighting and took as many more prisoners.” The Gauls presented no further military threat to Rome ever since.

According to the contemporary account of Josephus’ De bello Judaico 6.9.3, Caesar’s Flavian successors, faced with the very archetypes of religious terrorism known as the Zealots and the Sicarii, killed no fewer than 1,197,000 Jews in the siege of Jerusalem and its aftermath, in the course of just five years of the Jewish wars from 68 to 73 CE. (It bears notice that two centuries later, Tacitus’ History 5.13 counts but 600,000 Jews killed. Make what you will of this discrepancy.) Still, the Chosen People weren’t done asserting themselves against their Imperial hegemons. It all came to a head a few generations later, in the Bar Kokhba revolt fought circa 132–136 CE. According to Dio Cassius’ Roman History 69.13-14:
Fifty of their most important outposts and nine hundred and eighty-five of their most famous villages were razed to the ground. Five hundred and eighty thousand men were slain in the various raids and battles, and the number of those that perished by famine, disease and fire was past finding out. Thus nearly the whole of Judaea was made desolate, a result of which the people had had forewarning before the war. For the tomb of Solomon, which the Jews regard as an object of veneration, fell to pieces of itself and collapsed, and many wolves and hyenas rushed howling into their cities. Many Romans, moreover, perished in this war. Therefore Hadrian in writing to the senate did not employ the opening phrase commonly affected by the emperors, “If you and our children are in health, it is well; I and the legions are in health.”
The Jews presented no further military threat to Rome ever since. In fact, they presented no military threat to any other nation for nineteen centuries thereafter. If you think the same fate cannot or will not befall this or that Muslim nation, or even the Ummah in its peace-loving entirety, you are kidding yourself.

Nous voulions être là, parmi ceux qui ont vu ces choses atroces, pour dire que nous allons mener le combat, il sera impitoyable, parce que quand des terroristes sont capables de faire de telles atrocités, ils doivent être certains qu’il y aura en face d’eux une France déterminée, une France unie, une France rassemblée et une France qui ne se laissera pas impressionner même si aujourd’hui elle exprime une émotion infinie à l’égard de ce drame, de cette tragédie, qui est une abomination, parce que c’est une barbarie.
We wanted to be here, among all these who saw these atrocious things, to say that we are going to fight. And our fight will be merciless, because these terrorists that are capable of such atrocities need to know that they will be confronted by a France that is determined, unified, and together. France will not let itself be overawed, even if today it is expressing an infinite amount of emotion at this drama and this tragedy that was an abomination and a barbaric act.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

(4 comments | Leave a comment)

December 12th, 2015
04:37 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

December 11th, 2015
12:29 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

December 10th, 2015
12:01 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

December 9th, 2015
12:00 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

04:54 am

[Link]

My tweets
Read more...Collapse )

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

November 30th, 2015
12:02 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

November 29th, 2015
12:02 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

[<< Previous 30 entries]

Subrah Iyar Appreciation Society Powered by LiveJournal.com