June 2003 Archives

I enjoyed the beach bonfire that I went to on Saturday so much that I built my own fire pit this afternoon! $20 will buy you a lot of bricks at Home Depot... around 500 pounds, actually. I hauled them into my backyard, assembled them in a pit-like formation, and I'm ready to go!

Marshmallows -- check.
Wood -- check.
Skewers -- check.
Lighter fluid -- check.
Garden hose, just in case -- check, and mate.

Update:
I had my first bonfire tonight, and I roasted marshmallows to perfection. The fire pit worked excellently, and it's probably the coolest thing I've built in a while. There's something primal about cooking over an open flame -- I'm a pyro, anyway -- and I expect to make good use of my new pit this summer. If anyone wants to come over for a real caveman BBQ, just say the word!

I saw "28 Days Later..." last night, and I enjoyed it quite a bit. The premise was a little far-fetched, but that's expected when you lay down your $7.50 for a horror flick. I'm not going to summarize the plot, and I'll try not to spoil too much, but you may want to stop reading if you don't want to know what happens.

Ok then. Far-fetched premise: a virus that's passed through the blood turns humans into mindless killing machines (zombies, if you will) 10-20 seconds after infection. Not likely. The infected people then spend most of their time lounging around, waiting for uninfected people to walk by so they can infect them. What's with that? Why don't the zombies fight and eat each other? No explanation.

The movie isn't scary in the traditional horror sense, but it is rather spooky. The opening scenes with Jim wandering through an empty and deserted London are eerie, and the zombies' appearances are sudden and startling. The cinematography is excellent at times, but distracting at others, and borrows somewhat from "Evil Dead 2" and the like.

The end is a bit cheesy, but there really wasn't much else that could be done considering the hopeless situation the characters were in. The first half of the movie should have been doubled, and the second half should have been eliminated. Overall, I'd recommend the movie; although it isn't incredibly scary, it's spooky enough to give kids nightmares.

Bill Hobbs and the WaPo notice that the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act is going to hurt Democrats a lot more than it's going to hurt Republicans. Just as I said two months ago.

Bill rightly mocks the Democrats for being so foolish, but let's not forget that both parties have already formed numerous groups to funnel soft money to their campaigns despite the new law. I hate useless laws. It's a huge waste of time and money to pass laws that will have no effect, and it's detrimental to society. People should respect the law, but in order for that to happen there must be laws that are worthy of respect -- above all else, laws should be enforceable.

With Glenn off on vacation for a few months (I hope he doesn't have an unfortunate accident), I humbly recommend that you all set your start pages to Master of None -- but only if you want to know the news two months in advance. If you don't want me to spoil the surprises of the future for you, then set your start page two months deep in my archives.

I've written a lot recently about marriage and kids from my 25-year-old male perspective, and Courtney has jumped in from the other side.

It's nice to see there are girls like her out there, even if she lives in a far-distant land.

Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Fatah have all agreed to a three-month suspension of attacks against the "Zionist entity" (a.k.a., Israel), but it sounds to me as if their main motivation is to simply catch a breather. Israel has been knocking their leaders off left and right, and one of the many conditions of the cease-fire is that Israeli security forces can't continue assassinating terrorists. Meanwhile, suicide bombers can strike with impunity while these three organizations deny responsibility and association.

SDB expects another terrorist attack within 4 days, so I'll take days 5-8. Anyone else want to jump in the pool?

One of my friends sent me this article from the Economist about the dangers of ties between corporations and government. It's an interesting piece, and although I don't agree with it completely it makes some good points.

Ministers and business bosses do, of course, share some goals: they both want faster economic growth, and they often both want jobs to be created or, in the common political parlance, “protected”. So the urge to co-operate is powerful, by ministers acting as salesmen abroad or slanting regulations, tax breaks and subsidies to promote desired outcomes at home. It is not always corrupt or self-serving or distorting, and is often done with honourable motives. But it still ought to be avoided, for five main reasons. ...

Third, interventions are never neutral. Money or privileges are given to one group at the expense, directly or indirectly, of others or of taxpayers in general. Even within an industry, the interests of the firms consulted may differ from those of other firms. Efforts to even things up just add to the costs.

This third reason is entirely true, but as Donald Sensing has pointed out, redistributing wealth is just about all governments can do. Every economic policy, including anti-trust prosecutions which the author here lauds, serves to move wealth from one group to another.

There is no single, big solution to campaign-finance abuse, interest-group influence or corporate privileges. As Mr Rauch wrote in his 1999 book “Government's End”, what is needed is a panoply of incremental changes: pressure to scrap corporate welfare; ...

It's important to remember that corporate welfare (such as agricultural subsidies) is sometimes a part of policies that extend beyond wealth maximization. For instance, it would not be good for America to be too dependent on foreign food supplies if we get into a major war that could disrupt shipping or damage our relationships with the nations selling us food.

... reforms to make tax systems neutral rather than preferential; ...

That certainly sounds nice, assuming the author is talking about a flat tax or something like it.

... more use of competitive contracts for public programmes to discourage their capture by particular interest groups; ...

We should privatize as many government employees and programs as possible and break the stranglehold the unions have on our bureaucracy. Look at the problems France is facing right now, and imagine America in another few decades.

... a more robust attitude by politicians to corporate pressure; ...

You can't change human nature, as the author recognizes earlier in the article.

... laws seeking to reduce the need for campaign money by handing out free advertising time on television; ...

What the heck?! Everything was making sense up to this point. Who gets to pick which issues/candidates get this "free" air time? And who ends up paying for the "free" air time? Moronic.

Without that Sisyphean effort, governments will just be crushed. And so, eventually, will be the freedoms both of capitalism and democracy.

Nonsense. Corporations are not self-existent entities with their own will and agenda. Corporations are owned by members of the democracy, and in fact more American citizens now own stock in public corporations than have at any time in the past. If anything, democracy is moving into corporate culture more quickly than corporations are moving into government.

I had a very productive day today!

I slept late and then lifted weights for an hour or so. I am varying my workout regime so that my muscles don't get too accustomed to the same exercises over and over, and that's really been helping my strength.

Then I went in to work and solved a tricky hardware problem that the hardware people couldn't figure out. I mostly work with software and programming issues, but I get involved with the hardware from time to time. The air conditioning in the lab our unit is in is set differently on the weekends than during the week; the humidity was higher than we expected, and this caused some condensation on the inside of the test equipment that we don't normally have. The condensation shorted some circuits, and the shorts caused unusual voltage fluctuations. I'm a genius!

After solving all the problems at work (ha, right) I went to school to do some research for my Ph.D. I found a bunch of nifty articles in the Artificial Life journal -- and even better, I found them in PDF format. I emailed the articles to myself and completed that mission in record time.

Off to KFC for lunch. I sat there and drank soda and read for an hour and a half, and then went to my friends' house to play Starfarers of Catan. It's not the most fun game, but it's fun to hang out with friends for a few hours on a Saturday afternoon.

Then to the beach for a bonfire with s'mores! Mmmmmm, s'mores. I ate too many s'mores and probably undermined all the exercise I got this morning. Gotta wake up early to go running before church tomorrow, I guess.

Anyway, that's why there weren't any updates today! Toooooooooo busy being productive.

Looks like a good day for writing about responsibility.

Chante Mallard has been sentenced to 60 years in jail for murdering Gregory Biggs and then tampering with the evidence. I'm sure everyone is familiar with the case by now; the evidence she tampered with was Gregory Biggs' body, which became embedded in Mallard's windshield after she struck him while driving under the influence of numerous substances. Biggs didn't die immediately, however, and Mallard drove home with him still half through her windshield, parked her car in her garage, and left him there for several hours until he died. Mallard then called up her ex-boyfriend and his cousin who helped her "tamper the evidence" into a nearby park. She wasn't caught until several months later when a friend reported that she had joked about the incident at a party. Doctors declared that Biggs would have lived had he recieved prompt medical care, but Mallard decided it would be more convenient to let him die.

Her lawyer claims that she isn't a horrible person, but frankly I'm hard-pressed to think of a more callous act. A pre-mediated murder is less scary to me, because at least it's targetted against a specific individual. Mallard was just driving along, hit some random guy, and purposefully let him die; that could have been me!

"She could have saved him," said Tarrant County Assistant District Attorney Christy Jack. "Doesn't that speak volumes about her character? Doesn't that speak volumes about the atrocity of this crime?"

Yes. Yes it does.

To those who argue so strenuously for the legalization of various drugs, consider this:

Mallard, who admitted she had been drinking, smoking marijuana and doing the drug ecstasy the night of the accident, said drugs had ruined her life and she wanted to get treatment.

Dale Buss writes a bit about the Today's New International Version of the Bible, whose central feature is its usage of "gender neutral" phrasing.

In the TNIV New Testament, many masculine singular pronouns have become generic and plural. For example, here's how NIV renders Hebrews 12:7: "Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?" But TNIV translates that passage this way: "Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their parents?" The new version, goes the critique, loses the crucial reference to God as Father.

Similarly, in Luke 17:3, translators changed "If your brother sins, rebuke him" to "If any brother or sister sins against you, rebuke the offender." The problem, critics say, is that "sister" isn't found in the original language, nor is "against you," nor is "offender." And on and on.

In my opinion, this translation is just another bit of historical revisionism. In many (even most) specific instances, there's no theological problem with interpreting a given passage in a gender neutral manner. God deals with both his sons and daughters in pretty much the same manner; we are to rebuke both our brothers and sisters who sin. Adding "against you" and "offender" to Luke 17:3 changes the meaning far more than adding "sister".

It comes down to a matter of accuracy. Are you interested in what the Bible actually says, or are you interested in what you want it to say? What's the problem with reading a literal translation and then applying these gender neutral interpretations where appropriate? It's dangerous to corrupt the actual text by incorporating what are, after all, merely our interpretations of its literal contents. In fact, this is one of the principle objections that my non-Christian friends raise with regard to Christianity: they think of the Bible as merely a collection of human writings. If we allow ourselves to take such liberties with the translation, they aren't far wrong.

Senator Strom Thurmond died last night at the age of 100, and he certainly did have an interesting life. He made some bad choices that are rather significant in hindsight, but he seems to have done his best to correct them, which is more than many people can say.

He served as a governor, a senator, and a circuit judge, thereby touching every branch of our government. He also landed in France on a troop glider on D-Day at the age of 41 and was highly decorated for his military service. I can't imagine a more fulfilling and interesting life.

People need to take responsibility for themselves. I find it particularly disgusting that our nation's supposedly most mature citizens are doffing the responsibility for their lives by lobbying and cheering for ludicrously expensive government entitlements, the burden of which must be borne by their children and grandchildren. You may be "the greatest generation" to some, but this selfish foolishness highlights a widespread moral and economic failure on your part. You're supposed to be wise, you're supposed to be an example to we who are following after, but instead you wield your political power not to help or guide us, but for your own comfort and enrichment. Shame on you all. Imagine how great a boon you could have been to your families and your country; instead you're becoming a resented burden.

In 1 Corinthians 12:14 Paul writes: "After all, children should not have to save up for their parents, but parents for their children." In some circumstances the situation will be reversed, and I realize that it's not always due to failure on the part of the parents. Nevertheless, the general principle stands. The new $400 billion health care entitlement that Congress just passed moves me to pity -- it is a stark example of how the greatest among us have fallen short of the prize they should have obtained.

Given that we are where we are, what is the proper solution? In 1 Timothy 5:4 Paul writes further: "But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God." First note that this verse is speaking specifically about women who have lost their husbands; it was expected that older men would be able to care for themselves. We are instructed to care for our family, particularly our parents and grandparents, and the primary responsibility for that care falls on the children and grandchildren.

A few verses later, in 1 Timothy 5:8 Paul continues: "If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." Once the parents themselves have failed, the responsibility does fall onto their immediate family. Only when the immediate family will not or cannot carry the load does the responsibility transfer to the community as a whole.

How does this translate into public policy? It's not a simple issue. Would it be proper (or constitutional) to force families to bear the financial burden for their older members? Probably not. But the current situation is economically and morally unsustainable. Perhaps this lack of clarity should serve as a general indication that the government should not be involved in the area at all.

Glenn writes a bit about the job market, specifically within the tech sector. Unfortunately, he forgot that I wrote about it myself 5 days ago. He must have forgotten, because I'm sure he checks my site every day.

The Supreme Court ruled today that a California law that retroactively removes the statute of limitations for sex crimes is unconstitutional. Basically, the statute of limitations for sex crimes previously said that a prosecution had to be brought within 7 years of the crime, or else it could never be brought. The recent California law temporarily suspended that restriction and only required that a prosecution be brought within 1 year of when the victim filed a police report, which could be done any amount of time after the alleged abuse occured.

Statutes of limitations are important because it can be impossible to mount a defense against accusations of wrongdoing that may have occured in the distant past. Witnesses die and move away, memories fade and change over time. Realize, once an accusation is made and a prosecution has begun, there is no time limit on how long it can take to complete. If the suspect flees justice he can still be tried and convicted in absentia. Statutes of limitations only prevent accusations from being brought too long after the fact.

It may or may not be good policy to lengthen or eliminate the statute of limitations that applies to sex crimes, and that is still within the power of the California legislature, but the Supreme Court has ruled that it cannot do so retroactively for crimes that have already been committed.

Update:
This CNN story indicates that the statute of limitations for sex crimes in California is 3 years, not 7 as I said previously.

Interesting exchange between myself and John Callender over on this thread at Lies.com. What a great domain name!

Update:
No, I don't think Bush lied. Sigh. Try and keep up with me, people.

Bill Hobbs has a good perspective on the recent ricin discoveries, and points out that finding WMD in Iraq will be a constant trickle, not a flood. He's right, of course; it's unlikely that Saddam dug a single giant hole and threw everything in.

Update 2:
Bill Hobbs earlier post of his links to an in which he describes just how Saddam may have dug a giant hole to hide all his WMD. I knew I had that image in my mind from somewhere. Nevertheless, while it certainly would have been possible, it looks like Saddam decided not to put all his poisonous eggs into one basket and instead had his "nuclear mujahadeen" take their work home.

My brother Nick is is in Japan, and he has posted some interesting pictures from his travels. I'll share a couple.

This is a water pagoda, and I want one.

What's it for? I wish I knew. Do you boat over to it and then hang out and drink tea?

Here is the ferry that took him to to the island with the water pagoda.

It looks like a ferry designed by a Japanese tour-operator who wanted his European guests to feel right at home, and also was insane.

According to Center for Disease Control, the birth rate in America has fallen to its lowest point since a recent peak in 1990.

The birth rate was 13.9 per 1,000 persons in 2002, a decline of 1 percent from the rate of 14.1 per 1,000 in 2001 and down 17 percent from the recent peak in 1990 (16.7 per 1,000), according to a new CDC report, "Births: Preliminary Data for 2002." The current low birth rate primarily reflects the smaller proportion of women of childbearing age in the U.S. population, as baby boomers age and Americans are living longer.

There has also been a recent downturn in the birth rate for women in the peak childbearing ages. Birth rates for women in their 20s and early 30s were generally down while births to older mothers (35-44) were still on the rise. Rates were stable for women over 45.

The results "primarily reflect[] the smaller proportion of women of childbearing age", but there has "also been a recent downturn in the birth rate for women in the peak childbearing ages". I think it's unfortunate that people are getting married later and trying to have children later.

Men are becoming more and more afraid of committment, and women are spending decades building up careers only to discover that they've missed their chance to have children without medical intervention.

Mel Gibson has written/produced a movied based around the crucifixion of Jesus Christ entitled "The Passion", set to be released in 2004. From what I've read, the movie is a historically accurate depiction of Christ's last hours, and includes graphic visual scenes of the crucifixion itself.

The Jewish Anti-Defamation League of America (ADL) charges that the version of the screenplay that they've read is "replete with objectionable elements that would promote anti-Semitism." I haven't read what they've read, but it's clear that the movie will show some Jewish people doing some pretty bad things to Jesus.

In its statement, the ADL contended that Gibson and his collaborators "must complement their artistic vision with sound scholarship, which includes knowledge of how the passion accounts have been used historically to disparage and attack Jews and Judaism. Absent such scholarly and theological understanding, productions such as 'The Passion' could likely falsify history and fuel the animus of those who hate Jews."

The ADL wants Gibson to take historical anti-Semitism into account, apparently to such an extent that the accuracy of the movie would be compromised. However, I don't know what changes Gibson could make that would please the ADL.

Either the movie portrays Jews as participating in and encouraging the crucifixion, or it portrays Jews as (in some way) resisting the crucifixion... and thereby pro-Christ. There certainly were Jews who didn't want Jesus to be crucified -- we now call them Christians, and they believed that he was the Messiah. Would the ADL be happier if Gibson focused on them?

Revisionist history always bothers me. The French would love for everyone to forget how eager the Vichy government was to appease the Nazis. The Catholic church would like to pretend the Inquisition was just a bad dream. Americans would like to spin the Vietnam War as purposeful and necessary. The list goes on and on. Every organization, race, culture, and even every individual has done things they'd prefer they hadn't; it's not always necessary to drudge up the dark corners of history, but sometimes it is.

Really though, would the ADL prefer that the Jews hadn't accused Jesus of blasphemy and crucified him? I'm not even clear what alternative history they're pushing.

I know Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf is probably responsible for lots of Iraqi soldiers dying unnecessarily, but he was still extremely funny. It looks like he's been taken into custody despite earlier reports that he had been killed or committed suicide. He's not on the fabled deck of cards, and I've heard that he had tried to surrender previously but had been turned away by coalition forces. Maybe he's not such a bad guy.

Some famous quotes:

"There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!"

"My feelings - as usual - we will slaughter them all"

"Our initial assessment is that they will all die"

"No I am not scared, and neither should you be!"

"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!"

"We are not afraid of the Americans. Allah has condemned them. They are stupid. They are stupid" (dramatic pause) "and they are condemned."

"The Americans, they always depend on a method what I call ... stupid, silly. All I ask is check yourself. Do not in fact repeat their lies."

"I can say, and I am responsible for what I am saying, that they have started to commit suicide under the walls of Baghdad. We will encourage them to commit more suicides quickly."

"Lying is forbidden in Iraq. President Saddam Hussein will tolerate nothing but truthfulness as he is a man of great honor and integrity. Everyone is encouraged to speak freely of the truths evidenced in their eyes and hearts."

"I triple guarantee you, there are no American soldiers in Baghdad."

Of US troops: "They are most welcome. We will butcher them."

"We will welcome them with bullets and shoes."

"We are in control. They are in a state of hysteria. Losers, they think that by killing civilians and trying to distort the feelings of the people they will win. I think they will not win, those bastards."

"They're not even [within] 100 miles [of Baghdad]. They are not in any place. They hold no place in Iraq. This is an illusion ... they are trying to sell to the others an illusion."

"We will kill them all... most of them."

"They are nowhere near the airport ..they are lost in the desert...they can not read a compass... they are retarded."

"They are not in Baghdad. They are not in control of any airport. I tell you this. It is all a lie. They lie. It is a hollywood movie. You do not believe them."

"NO", snapped Mr al-Sahaf, "We have retaken the airport. There are NO Americans there. I will take you there and show you. IN ONE HOUR!"

"Yes, the american troops have advanced further. This will only make it easier for us to defeat them."

"They fled. The American louts fled. Indeed, concerning the fighting waged by the heroes of the Arab Socialist Baath Party yesterday, one amazing thing really is the cowardice of the American soldiers. we had not anticipated this."

"They think we are retarded - they are retarded."

"The midget Bush and that Rumsfield deserve only to be beaten with shoes by freedom loving people everywhere."

"Rumsfeld, he needs to be hit on the head."

"Even those who live on another planet, if there are such people, would have condemned this action before it started."

The old location for this site is currently the #1 Google hit for a search on "jack of all trades master of none". A search on "master of none" yields the old site as #2 and the current site as #4.

Courtney wonders whether the currently paralyzed liberal mass in America will eventually move towards the radical leftists, or the libertarian hawks.

I say: neither. The greatest mass of committed liberals (those who elected Bill Clinton, for example) is made up of baby boomers who are too set in their ways to ever escape into this dimension I affectionately call "reality". They will continue to cling to whatever scraps of power they can get ahold of, but their tenure as a mainstream ideology is finished.

The future of liberalism belongs to the largely libertarian youth. They don't really identify with the Republicans (too conservative on [some] social issues) or the Democrats (too economically socialist) and they're waiting in the wings, ready to come into their own over the next couple of decades.

The baby boomers will have their last hurrah as beneficiaries of the all-powerful AARP and then die. They will not go gently into that good night, and they will struggle vainly to drag the rest of us down with them. But they won't ever change. Vietnam is their eternal yesterday, and the USSR will always be their vision of a slightly-flawed paradise.

I don't go to libraries much anymore. Ten years ago, when I was in high school, it was still necessary to make the trip for research purposes, but these days I can find everything I need on the internet. If I want to buy a rare book I don't have to search very hard: I can have it delivered right to my door by Amazon with a few clicks of my mouse.

I went to the central branch of the Los Angeles Public Library a couple weeks ago, and most of the people there were standing in line to borrow free DVD movies, not books. One of the patrons remarked to me that it was brilliant of the library to expand its services by loaning out movies, but why? Merely to perpetuate the library's own existence? There are plenty of Blockbusters around, and I really don't see why my tax dollars should support an institution that loans out movies for free.

I'm told that in the far distant past, before mega-bookstores like Barnes & Noble and Borders, the library was the only place in town to find anything other than the currently most popular best-sellers. In such an environment, libraries have a purpose. In the modern world, however, I really don't see the point. Books are cheap and widely available to everyone, and I think the era of the public library should come to a close.

I really don't know what to make of this.

A congressman who tracks missing and exploited children said he found "truly disturbing" a report of a nudist camp in Florida for children as young as 11 years of age and is calling for an investigation.

Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) asked Gov. Jeb Bush and Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist to investigate a nudist camp for children 11 to 18 years of age at the Lake Como Resort near Tampa.

"As co-chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, I'm asking that current Florida law be reviewed to determine if this camp is indeed legal or if it has simply slipped under the radar screen of law enforcement for the past 10 years," Foley said in a June 18 letter to Bush and Crist. ...

"Our children are in no danger whatsoever," said Carolyn Hawkins, an AANR spokeswoman.

"We are about family recreation, and we want to keep it family social nude recreation. We're very protective of our kids, whether it be there or elsewhere," Hawkins added.

The AANR boasts 50,000 members and 260 clubs throughout the United States, Canada and Jamaica. The membership reflects a growing interest nationwide in camps for child and teen nudists, Hawkins said. ...

Parents and campers maintain that the camp promotes a healthy body image among the teens and better communication between the sexes. Campers are protected by adult counselors and sleep in tents isolated from regular resort-goers.

Nudity on private property in Florida is legal, even among minors, so long as there is no illicit sexual behavior. Foley, who lobbied for the Amber Alert network as a way to broadcast missing children's cases across the country, is calling on Bush and Crist to review the law.

On one hand, I can't see how the government could possibly outlaw nudity on private property, and on the other hand I can't see how the government can allow child nudist camps but then enforce laws that make it illegal to take photographs of the camps. How can it be legal to go to a nudist camp and see naked children everywhere, but be illegal to take pictures?

Granted, not every picture taken at such a camp would fall under the definition of "pornography", but it's not at all far-fetched that some would. Much of the argument against child pornography is based around the idea that seeing such pictures "whets the appetite" of pedophiles and increases the likelyhood that they will abuse a child, which is why there is so much controversy over so-called "virtual" child pornography which is made without involving an actual child. Even though pictures taken at nudist camps aren't sexually explicit and do not record actual child abuse, couldn't they still serve to "encourage" pedophiles?

So what's the solution? I have no idea. We tend to behave rather irrationally when it comes to our children, and this irrationality leads to conflicting laws and policies as I described above. I don't see how a consistent policy can be created that permits child nudity on private property -- and thus nudist camps -- but prohibits "virtual" child pornography (or, arguably, some real child pornography).

An 11-year longitudinal study sponsored by the National Cancer Institute has been halted 3 years early because its findings are particularly clear and striking: finasteride, a drug currently used primarily to fight baldness and enlarged prostates, reduces the chance that a man will develop prostate cancer by 25%.

Prostate cancer afflicts 221,000 American men each year, kil