Inhuman Swill : Page 158
Why is my blog called Inhuman Swill? Because you can unscramble the pieces to make William Shunn.

Drooly, madly, deeply

| No Comments

Ella was sitting on the couch with Laura and me last night as we watched Truly, Madly, Deeply on DVD, and the poor pooch had no idea why we were both sobbing so hard. She kept looking up at us in confusion and distress, as if she'd do something to help if only she could figure out why we were sad, and whether or not that meant she should be sad too.

We're never going to be able to watch Old Yeller with her in the room.

Full entry

In about three hours, I'll be sitting down to the opening night of The Last Starfighter: The Musical. Yes, you read that right. And having rewatched the film last evening on DVD, I have to say I'm cautiously excited. Confining the action to a stage can only help the story....

Full entry

The Sidewinder Award

| No Comments

This blog entry of Will Shetterly's, which some of you have no doubt already seen, uses a science-fictional conceit to point out what a mind-bendingly weird political landscape we're living in. How is it we arrived at such an unthinkable destination so quietly and quickly?

(I nominate Shetterly's post for a Sidewinder Award, for best alternate-history tale about a snake.)

Full entry

Simple questions

| No Comments

The brilliant little blog One Simple Question got me thinking about the questions I kept wanted Bob Schieffer to ask during last night's debate:

  • Mr. President, you were a C- student in economics at Harvard. What in the world makes you think you're qualified to talk about economics here, let alone set economic policy for the richest nation in the world?
  • Mr. President, surely you've reviewed the transcript of the September 30th debate many times. Can you explain why you and your cronies are still harping on this "global test" nonsense when Senator Kerry clearly stated in that same answer that he would never give foreign nations veto power over America's defensive decisions?
  • Mr. President, you've made an impressive amount of noise this evening about the fact that you support a culture of life, but you've failed to answer the question of "Why?" Can you explain the reasoning behind your position to the American people?
  • Mr. President, when you rail against activist judges taking decision-making power out of the hands of the people, do you ever feel a twinge of irony considering what body finally bestowed the presidency on you? Can you even define the word "irony"?
  • Mr. President, what is the last book, other than the Bible, that you have read? Would you recommend it to American readers? Why or why not? The Fart Book does not count.
Instead, we got that insipid question about strong women, which let Schieffer inflate his own importance and end the debate on a note of touchy-feely lovefesty fuzziness.
Full entry

The elephant in the room

| No Comments

Over breakfast this morning, I was reading the October 18 New Yorker—"The Political Issue." A story by Philip Gourevitch about the first presidental debate, "Reality Check," sucked me in, and I had to share the closing paragraph:

For Bush, to say that the world is not as he describes it is to give solace to our enemies, undermine our forces on the field of battle, and endanger the lives of the citizenry. Even as the Duelfer report made it clear that Saddam Hussein had posed no threat to America, had no capacity to produce a threat, and had nothing to give to others to threaten us with, Bush stood on the stump in Wilkes-Barre scolding Kerry for saying the very same thing. "The problem with this approach is obvious," the President proclaimed. "If America waits until a threat is at our doorstep, it might be too late." Kerry is offering himself as the candidate of change—truth vs. unreality, a fresh start vs. more of the same. We need friends in this dangerous world, he says, and we need diplomacy to try and disarm and contain our enemies lest it should be our burden, otherwise, to destroy them. What Kerry doesn't say—and cannot say—is that when it comes to real threats, like North Korea and Iran, Bush's fixation with Iraq may already have made it too late for any American President to find a peaceful solution.  [full article]
All I have to say is: chilling.
Full entry


| No Comments

When I first secured my own domain,, one of the pleasures of that vanity acquisition was catch-all email forwarding. What this meant was that any email sent to—whether, or—would end up in my inbox. In essence, I had an infinite set of email addresses to call my own.*

This was back in those heady days when spam was still a relatively scarce and benign offense, though even then the prudent were being warned not to put "mailto" URLs on their web sites, owing to the many robots out harvesting just such creatures to feed into their nefarious spam machines.

Over the years, as the tide of spam has risen, I've applied an increasing rigorous series of filters to hold back the onslaught. I've watched my daily spam intake increase logarithmically—maybe one a day back in the day, then ten, then a hundred, then a thousand. Yes, a thousand.

Part of this was due, I admit, to having placed many of those pesky links on my site. By the time I realized I seriously needed to scour them, the damage was done. My email address was out there, prominently listed amongst the ingredients for spam. But that was not all of it. Spammers grew more clever by leaps and bounds. They took to running whole dictionaries of common and not-so-common first names through their software, pairing each with domain names that anyone could glean from a handy DNS server. I received spam targeted at everyone from to

Full entry

An infernal machine

| No Comments

Hey, Bob, speaking of choking on my lunch, this passage from Roger Ebert's Sun-Times review of "I ♥ Huckabees" got me too:

The movie is like an infernal machine that consumes all of the energy it generates, saving the last watt of current to turn itself off. It functions perfectly within its constraints, but it leaves the viewer out of the loop. This may be the first movie that can exist without an audience between the projector and the screen. It falls in its own forest, and hears itself. It's the kind of movie that would inspire a Charlie Kaufman screenplay about how it couldn't be made. The director and co-writer is David O. Russell, who made the brilliant "Three Kings" and the quirky "Flirting with Disaster," and now ... well, he has made this. God knows he's courageous.
I quote this also by way of pointing out that Ebert's long-promised new web site,, is now available. The cool thing is that it has a searchable archive of all his Sun-Times reviews going back to 1967. Until now, the archive of his reviews only went back to 1985. Two thumbs up!
Full entry

A nova in the sky of science

| No Comments

Today's Astronomy Picture of the Day features a multi-spectrum composite image of Kepler's supernova, or rather the expanding cloud that still remains from the stellar explosion that became visible on Earth in 1604:

Kepler's Supernova Remnant
The picture and its description got me thinking. We're used to thinking about events on our own planet, or at least from within our own solar system, that may have affected the course of human evolution. The asteroid strike 65 million years ago comes to mind, which may have cleared out the dinosaurs and set the stage for the ascendancy of mammals. How strange if our scientific development were affected by a distant star that exploded 13,000 years ago, and whose light fell on Earth at just the right time to inflame and focus the curiosity of Kepler and other early astronomers. Wouldn't that be something? Talk about a strong force acting across a distance!
Full entry

Is Bush wired?

| No Comments

Wow, a whole web site, new this week, devoted to discussion of whether or not Dubya is being fed lines by a prompter through an earpiece at press conferences and debates.

Find the first, explanatory blog entry here.

Full entry

Bush keeps hammering on the "global test" Kerry talked about during last week's debate. There's been a lot of discussion in the media about what Kerry meant by this. I think that was pretty clear, as's William Saletan pointed out early Monday in this column:

This description, which Bush continues to repeat at campaign stops and in television ads, is plainly false. In his first answer of the debate, Kerry said, "I'll never give a veto to any country over our security." But if that isn't what Kerry meant by a "global test," what did he mean?...

It's clear from Kerry's first sentence that the "global test" doesn't prevent unilateral action to protect ourselves. But notice what else Kerry says. The test includes convincing "your countrymen" that your reasons are clear and sound. Kerry isn't just talking about satisfying France. He's talking about satisfying Ohio. He's talking about you.

What do you have in common with a Frenchman? Look again at Kerry's words. He says the test is to "prove" that our reasons for attacking were legitimate. In the next sentence, he gives an example of someone failing that test: Colin Powell's February 2003 presentation to the United Nations about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. What did Powell apologize for? The inaccuracy of our intelligence. Kerry contrasts this with the trust France once placed in American spy photos.

Full entry
The Accidental Terrorist 30th Anniversary Sale

Signed editions
that even a
could afford.

Order yours now!

William Shunn