I've tackled how "the right to buy weapons is the right to be free" (Vincent van Gogh) in some detail, but David's Medienkritik observes a new low: Watch pockets are evil! You can store ammunition in them! Levi's jeans = fascist!
Murder is tragic and serious, so why do inanimate objects absurdly take the blame?
And the following is from a reader...
Think about this:
A. The number of physicians in the US is 700,000.
B. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year is 120,000.
C. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
(Source: US Dept. of Health & Human Services)
Then think about this:
A. The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000.
B. The number of accidental gun deaths per year is 1,500.
C. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner 0.0000188.
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
We must ban doctors before this gets out of hand. As a public health measure, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear that the shock may cause people to seek medical attention.
Monday, March 28, 2005
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Finger Food
You might try avoiding Wendy's for awhile. Especially if you are related to this guy.
Update: Wendy's can't figure out what happened, and the woman in question has a litigious history.
What I want to know is: Where is the rest of the body?
Update II: The woman in question is now under arrest.
Update: Wendy's can't figure out what happened, and the woman in question has a litigious history.
What I want to know is: Where is the rest of the body?
Update II: The woman in question is now under arrest.
Friday, March 18, 2005
Orkney Terrine, With Sunrise
BBC reports that a famed British composer is in trouble with the law:
The Queen's composer has ruffled feathers after police found the body of a swan at his home.
Sir Peter Maxwell Davies, Master of the Queen's Music, was cautioned over the discovery of the remains of a protected species at his house in Orkney.
He said the bird died after hitting a power line. When police called at his home he offered them swan terrine.
It is yummy, Sir Max. When are you going to do Swan Bake?
The Queen's composer has ruffled feathers after police found the body of a swan at his home.
Sir Peter Maxwell Davies, Master of the Queen's Music, was cautioned over the discovery of the remains of a protected species at his house in Orkney.
He said the bird died after hitting a power line. When police called at his home he offered them swan terrine.
It is yummy, Sir Max. When are you going to do Swan Bake?
This Entry Is Not Titled "Crying Wolfowitz"
After Reuters' penetrating analysis on why insurgents in Iraq target Iraqis, you may wonder how the press could be less intelligent. But Paul Wolfowitz's nomination to head the World Bank offers new heights of lowness:
Norman Geras observes (in an entry titled "Crying Wolfowitz") that The Guardian continues its tradition of employing Britain's mentally impaired. "Some worry that his strong emphasis on human rights may complicate relations with China," says the editorial, without reference or logic (putting a human rights champion at the World Bank is bad?).
For out-and-out bias, though, James Taranto (in an entry titled "Crying Wolfowitz") leans into The New York Times over this:
The announcement, coming on the heels of the appointment of John R. Bolton as the new American ambassador to the United Nations, was greeted with quiet anguish in those foreign capitals where the Iraq conflict and its aftermath remain deeply unpopular, and where Mr. Wolfowitz's drive to spread democracy around the world has been viewed with some suspicion. . . .
Despite the displeasure of some diplomats who had hoped that the administration would appoint a person without the almost radioactive reputation of a committed ideologue, they said that they expected Mr. Wolfowitz to receive the approval of the World Bank's board of directors in time for Mr. Wolfensohn's departure in May.
Taranto also forwards a priceless quote from an unnamed French official: "We all know he has strong convictions, and that is a bit frightening." I'm guessing the official is from Vichy.
Update: On a related note, the gross inflation of Iraqi deaths continues in the press. This is worse than the unstoppable fake turkey fantasy.
Norman Geras observes (in an entry titled "Crying Wolfowitz") that The Guardian continues its tradition of employing Britain's mentally impaired. "Some worry that his strong emphasis on human rights may complicate relations with China," says the editorial, without reference or logic (putting a human rights champion at the World Bank is bad?).
For out-and-out bias, though, James Taranto (in an entry titled "Crying Wolfowitz") leans into The New York Times over this:
The announcement, coming on the heels of the appointment of John R. Bolton as the new American ambassador to the United Nations, was greeted with quiet anguish in those foreign capitals where the Iraq conflict and its aftermath remain deeply unpopular, and where Mr. Wolfowitz's drive to spread democracy around the world has been viewed with some suspicion. . . .
Despite the displeasure of some diplomats who had hoped that the administration would appoint a person without the almost radioactive reputation of a committed ideologue, they said that they expected Mr. Wolfowitz to receive the approval of the World Bank's board of directors in time for Mr. Wolfensohn's departure in May.
Taranto also forwards a priceless quote from an unnamed French official: "We all know he has strong convictions, and that is a bit frightening." I'm guessing the official is from Vichy.
Update: On a related note, the gross inflation of Iraqi deaths continues in the press. This is worse than the unstoppable fake turkey fantasy.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Social Security Tango
The QandO Blog notes that the Washington Post report on Bush's social security plans is not entirely honest...
The public overwhelmingly disapproves of 1) the way Bush is handling Social Security (56% - 35%), and 2) "Bush's proposals on Social Security" (55% - 37%).
But the public also overwhelmingly supports — by a margin of 56% - 41% — "a plan in which people who chose to could invest some of their Social Security contributions in the stock market".
Uh.....
That brings up a couple questions:
1. Where have I seen a plan like that before?
2. If the public supports personal accounts, then to which of Bush's "proposals on Social Security" do they object? Because the only thing he's actually proposed is the option to "invest some of their Social Security contributions in the stock market".
Investment specialist Donald Luskin wrote an eviscerating response to critics of SS privatization back in December. 'Tis worth reading.
The public overwhelmingly disapproves of 1) the way Bush is handling Social Security (56% - 35%), and 2) "Bush's proposals on Social Security" (55% - 37%).
But the public also overwhelmingly supports — by a margin of 56% - 41% — "a plan in which people who chose to could invest some of their Social Security contributions in the stock market".
Uh.....
That brings up a couple questions:
1. Where have I seen a plan like that before?
2. If the public supports personal accounts, then to which of Bush's "proposals on Social Security" do they object? Because the only thing he's actually proposed is the option to "invest some of their Social Security contributions in the stock market".
Investment specialist Donald Luskin wrote an eviscerating response to critics of SS privatization back in December. 'Tis worth reading.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Tomorrow Never Lies
A look around at Snopes reveals a sad truth about mankind: We love gossip. We especially love gossip presented as news, never mind the absurdity.
For example, much is still made about NASA's use of an anti-gravity pen that can write in weightlessness and the million-dollar cost of developing it, whereas the Soviet Union's cosmonauts simply used grease pencils. That NASA also started out with grease pencils, but found them too expensive (nearly $130 per unit in 1965) and insufficient for their needs, receives less discussion. NASA eventually purchased the "spacepen," developed and paid for solely by the Fisher Pen Co., for $6 per unit in 1967. Cosmonauts stopped using the pencils in favor of the American-made pens in 1969. The American and Russian space agencies continue to use the pens today.
While the "NASA wasted money on a space pen" story is untrue and can serve as an anti-American anecdote, it is frivolous. Nobody goes crazy over it. More harmful are conspiracy theories. "Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia," says a recent debunking of 9/11 myths in Popular Mechanics. We see some of the same lunacy about Iraq, whether it is those Americans who believe Saddam Hussein directly aided the 9/11 attacks, or in critics of the war who insist the only justification was the "misguided concern" (if they are polite) over weapons of mass destruction. Both views have some supporting facts, but then so do many illusions.
How do we deal with misinformation? One of the reasons I started this blog was to share what I know. I like to think that helps. Another reason was to learn, because I do not know everything. We all have our biases and our blind spots, and blogging enables an open accounting of them. There is no place where such an open accounting is inappropriate. We ought to encourage it. So while suspicions that there are government plans to bar free expression on web logs may be misplaced (update: or not), I still have to worry when Massachusetts senator John Kerry sounds a similar note:
If 77 percent of the people who voted for George Bush on Election Day believed weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq--as they did--and 77 percent of the people who voted for him believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11--as they did--then something has happened in the way in which we are talking to each other and who is arbitrating the truth in American politics... When fear is dominating the discussion and when there are false choices presented and there is no arbitrator, we have a problem.
We will have a bigger problem when there is an arbitrator. Who decides what is true, and how? Who chooses this arbitrator? What standards and safeguards ensure that the arbitrator is fair, and how does the arbitrator differ from the legal standards and safeguards that already exist? The First Amendment has no requirements on facts, which actually works in your favor, Sen. Kerry. (I understand that you are still upset over the American people not rewarding you for offering such votes of confidence. Perhaps if you call Americans stupid outright, rather than dressing it up in "nuance," you might win more votes in '08. Bluntness worked for that other fella.)
We learned that the mainstream media, over the course of the last year, did a pretty good job of discerning.
You would say that. From an Associated Press report on a Project for Excellence in Journalism study: "A more limited look at campaign coverage found that 36 percent of stories on President Bush were negative, compared to 12 percent for Democrat John Kerry. Stories were positive 20 percent of the time for Bush, 30 percent for Kerry, said the project, which examined some 250 stories for tone."
But there's a subculture and a sub-media that talks and keeps things going for entertainment purposes rather than for the flow of information.
Darn you, bloggers! Darn you all to heck! You laugh at me! Do you know who I am?
And that has a profound impact and undermines what we call the mainstream media of the country.
The mainstream media deserves it. Widening personal discussion, encouraging independent research, and embracing reason are healthy steps forward in the age of globalization. On these traits, the media is slipping out of the mainstream. Another argument is that the people drive the basic dynamics of the United States of America's media; those in the American media who do not follow the changes will never rise above them.
And so the decision-making ability of the American electorate has been profoundly impacted as a consequence of that.
This cannot possibly be a good thing, because...? I'll repeat the P.J. O'Rourke summery: "American free speech needs to be submitted to arbitration because Americans aren't smart enough to have a First Amendment, and you can tell this is so, because Americans weren't smart enough to vote for John Kerry."
The question is, what are we going to do about it?
We could start by teaching you about civil liberties, you pompous censor.
Nobody can doubt that, intentionally or not, misinformation spreads far and wide. What we should doubt is that limiting free expression is wiser and more liberal than countering dishonest speech with honesty. I prefer our arrangement where a fraud is comfortable telling a lie over one where I am afraid to tell the truth.
For example, much is still made about NASA's use of an anti-gravity pen that can write in weightlessness and the million-dollar cost of developing it, whereas the Soviet Union's cosmonauts simply used grease pencils. That NASA also started out with grease pencils, but found them too expensive (nearly $130 per unit in 1965) and insufficient for their needs, receives less discussion. NASA eventually purchased the "spacepen," developed and paid for solely by the Fisher Pen Co., for $6 per unit in 1967. Cosmonauts stopped using the pencils in favor of the American-made pens in 1969. The American and Russian space agencies continue to use the pens today.
While the "NASA wasted money on a space pen" story is untrue and can serve as an anti-American anecdote, it is frivolous. Nobody goes crazy over it. More harmful are conspiracy theories. "Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia," says a recent debunking of 9/11 myths in Popular Mechanics. We see some of the same lunacy about Iraq, whether it is those Americans who believe Saddam Hussein directly aided the 9/11 attacks, or in critics of the war who insist the only justification was the "misguided concern" (if they are polite) over weapons of mass destruction. Both views have some supporting facts, but then so do many illusions.
How do we deal with misinformation? One of the reasons I started this blog was to share what I know. I like to think that helps. Another reason was to learn, because I do not know everything. We all have our biases and our blind spots, and blogging enables an open accounting of them. There is no place where such an open accounting is inappropriate. We ought to encourage it. So while suspicions that there are government plans to bar free expression on web logs may be misplaced (update: or not), I still have to worry when Massachusetts senator John Kerry sounds a similar note:
If 77 percent of the people who voted for George Bush on Election Day believed weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq--as they did--and 77 percent of the people who voted for him believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11--as they did--then something has happened in the way in which we are talking to each other and who is arbitrating the truth in American politics... When fear is dominating the discussion and when there are false choices presented and there is no arbitrator, we have a problem.
We will have a bigger problem when there is an arbitrator. Who decides what is true, and how? Who chooses this arbitrator? What standards and safeguards ensure that the arbitrator is fair, and how does the arbitrator differ from the legal standards and safeguards that already exist? The First Amendment has no requirements on facts, which actually works in your favor, Sen. Kerry. (I understand that you are still upset over the American people not rewarding you for offering such votes of confidence. Perhaps if you call Americans stupid outright, rather than dressing it up in "nuance," you might win more votes in '08. Bluntness worked for that other fella.)
We learned that the mainstream media, over the course of the last year, did a pretty good job of discerning.
You would say that. From an Associated Press report on a Project for Excellence in Journalism study: "A more limited look at campaign coverage found that 36 percent of stories on President Bush were negative, compared to 12 percent for Democrat John Kerry. Stories were positive 20 percent of the time for Bush, 30 percent for Kerry, said the project, which examined some 250 stories for tone."
But there's a subculture and a sub-media that talks and keeps things going for entertainment purposes rather than for the flow of information.
Darn you, bloggers! Darn you all to heck! You laugh at me! Do you know who I am?
And that has a profound impact and undermines what we call the mainstream media of the country.
The mainstream media deserves it. Widening personal discussion, encouraging independent research, and embracing reason are healthy steps forward in the age of globalization. On these traits, the media is slipping out of the mainstream. Another argument is that the people drive the basic dynamics of the United States of America's media; those in the American media who do not follow the changes will never rise above them.
And so the decision-making ability of the American electorate has been profoundly impacted as a consequence of that.
This cannot possibly be a good thing, because...? I'll repeat the P.J. O'Rourke summery: "American free speech needs to be submitted to arbitration because Americans aren't smart enough to have a First Amendment, and you can tell this is so, because Americans weren't smart enough to vote for John Kerry."
The question is, what are we going to do about it?
We could start by teaching you about civil liberties, you pompous censor.
Nobody can doubt that, intentionally or not, misinformation spreads far and wide. What we should doubt is that limiting free expression is wiser and more liberal than countering dishonest speech with honesty. I prefer our arrangement where a fraud is comfortable telling a lie over one where I am afraid to tell the truth.
Friday, March 11, 2005
United Patients
Many are deeply skeptical of President Bush's nomination of John Bolton as America's United Nations ambassador. They have good reason to worry, which means that a U.N. official seemingly intent on shooting the organization in the foot (another U.N. official...) had to open his mouth and make Bolton look ideal. In this instance, Secretary-General Kofi Annan's chief of staff, Mark Malloch Brown, chose to say something silly:
Democracy has a lot longer roots and a lot more friends than just the current campaign of President Bush.
Thank you, Mr. Obvious. England and Australia are also particularly active on championing representative governments, and are not afraid to work with the United States not only diplomatically but, when appropriate, militarily as well. That said, President Bush is the first American leader to make actually being a powerful friend--rather than simply talking like one--a key to both national security and foreign policy. He may deserve some praise for that. An excerpt from P.J. O'Rourke's upcoming "Peace Kills: America's Fun New Imperialism" touches on Bush's reasoning...
Americans would like to ignore foreign policy. Our previous attempts at isolationism were successful. Unfortunately, they were successful for Hitler's Germany and Tojo's Japan. Evil is an outreach program. A solitary bad person sitting alone, harboring genocidal thoughts, and wishing he ruled the world is not a problem unless he lives next to us in the trailer park. In the big geopolitical trailer park that is the world today, he does.
America has to act. But, when America acts, other nations accuse us of being “hegemonistic,” of engaging in “unilateralism,” of behaving as if we’re the only nation on earth that counts.
We are. Russia used to be a superpower but resigned "to spend more time with the family." China is supposed to be mighty, but the Chinese leadership quakes when a couple of hundred Falun Gong members do tai chi for Jesus. The European Union looks impressive on paper, with a greater population and a larger economy than America's. But the military spending of Britain, France, Germany, and Italy combined does not equal one third of the U.S. defense budget. The United States spends more on defense than the aforementioned countries—plus Russia plus China plus the next six top defense-spending nations. Any multilateral military or diplomatic effort that includes the United States is a crew team with Arnold Schwarzenegger as coxswain and Nadia Comaneci on the oars. When other countries demand a role in the exercise of global power, America can ask another fundamental American question: "You and what army?"
...Fascists do bad things just to be bad. "I'm the baddest dude in Baghdad," Saddam Hussein was saying, "the baddest cat in the Middle East. I'm way bad." This was way stupid. But fascists are stupid. Consider Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. He didn't have any. How stupid does that make Saddam? All he had to do was say to UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, "Look where you want. Look beneath the couch cushions. Look under my bed. Look in the special spider hole I'm keeping for emergencies." And Saddam Hussein could have gone on dictatoring away until Donald Rumsfeld is elected head of the World Council of Churches.
Instead, we blew the place to bits. And a mess was left behind. But it's a mess without a military to fight aggressive wars; a mess without the facilities to develop dangerous weapons; a mess that cannot systematically kill, torture, and oppress millions of its citizens. It's a mess with a message--don't mess with us.
Regardless of whether one considers the policy wise, unwise, or mediocre, its foundation has nothing to do with Bush inventing democracy--again, who thinks he did?--and everything to do with supporting it. If you care so much about democracy, Bush challenges, then try to act a little more like you mean it.
The conference gets stranger. Not satisfied with watching Malloch Brown lash out against suggestions Bush never made, Chilean Vice-President Jose Miguel Insulza tossed in a cliché:
We must also remember that democracy develops from within the people.
We must also remember that some people needed a lot of help developing a viable democracy (read: a representative constitutional republic) over the years... frequently through having the first step imposed by outside forces... most successfully by the United States and Friends.
He also warns of "a hidden agenda" if a single country promotes democracy. Assuming, for the sake of his argument, that more nations do not add more hidden agendas, this still raises the question of why the multinational United Nations is not therefore working harder at promoting democracy. We see counsels and committees, but concrete actions are few and far between. Until world leaders get busy, it is difficult for many Americans to take international complaints about Bush's actions seriously. If you can do a better job, guys, then now is a fine time to start.
Democracy has a lot longer roots and a lot more friends than just the current campaign of President Bush.
Thank you, Mr. Obvious. England and Australia are also particularly active on championing representative governments, and are not afraid to work with the United States not only diplomatically but, when appropriate, militarily as well. That said, President Bush is the first American leader to make actually being a powerful friend--rather than simply talking like one--a key to both national security and foreign policy. He may deserve some praise for that. An excerpt from P.J. O'Rourke's upcoming "Peace Kills: America's Fun New Imperialism" touches on Bush's reasoning...
Americans would like to ignore foreign policy. Our previous attempts at isolationism were successful. Unfortunately, they were successful for Hitler's Germany and Tojo's Japan. Evil is an outreach program. A solitary bad person sitting alone, harboring genocidal thoughts, and wishing he ruled the world is not a problem unless he lives next to us in the trailer park. In the big geopolitical trailer park that is the world today, he does.
America has to act. But, when America acts, other nations accuse us of being “hegemonistic,” of engaging in “unilateralism,” of behaving as if we’re the only nation on earth that counts.
We are. Russia used to be a superpower but resigned "to spend more time with the family." China is supposed to be mighty, but the Chinese leadership quakes when a couple of hundred Falun Gong members do tai chi for Jesus. The European Union looks impressive on paper, with a greater population and a larger economy than America's. But the military spending of Britain, France, Germany, and Italy combined does not equal one third of the U.S. defense budget. The United States spends more on defense than the aforementioned countries—plus Russia plus China plus the next six top defense-spending nations. Any multilateral military or diplomatic effort that includes the United States is a crew team with Arnold Schwarzenegger as coxswain and Nadia Comaneci on the oars. When other countries demand a role in the exercise of global power, America can ask another fundamental American question: "You and what army?"
...Fascists do bad things just to be bad. "I'm the baddest dude in Baghdad," Saddam Hussein was saying, "the baddest cat in the Middle East. I'm way bad." This was way stupid. But fascists are stupid. Consider Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. He didn't have any. How stupid does that make Saddam? All he had to do was say to UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, "Look where you want. Look beneath the couch cushions. Look under my bed. Look in the special spider hole I'm keeping for emergencies." And Saddam Hussein could have gone on dictatoring away until Donald Rumsfeld is elected head of the World Council of Churches.
Instead, we blew the place to bits. And a mess was left behind. But it's a mess without a military to fight aggressive wars; a mess without the facilities to develop dangerous weapons; a mess that cannot systematically kill, torture, and oppress millions of its citizens. It's a mess with a message--don't mess with us.
Regardless of whether one considers the policy wise, unwise, or mediocre, its foundation has nothing to do with Bush inventing democracy--again, who thinks he did?--and everything to do with supporting it. If you care so much about democracy, Bush challenges, then try to act a little more like you mean it.
The conference gets stranger. Not satisfied with watching Malloch Brown lash out against suggestions Bush never made, Chilean Vice-President Jose Miguel Insulza tossed in a cliché:
We must also remember that democracy develops from within the people.
We must also remember that some people needed a lot of help developing a viable democracy (read: a representative constitutional republic) over the years... frequently through having the first step imposed by outside forces... most successfully by the United States and Friends.
He also warns of "a hidden agenda" if a single country promotes democracy. Assuming, for the sake of his argument, that more nations do not add more hidden agendas, this still raises the question of why the multinational United Nations is not therefore working harder at promoting democracy. We see counsels and committees, but concrete actions are few and far between. Until world leaders get busy, it is difficult for many Americans to take international complaints about Bush's actions seriously. If you can do a better job, guys, then now is a fine time to start.
Progressive Zoology
Since this blog metaphorically fell into a hole in February, I am linking to this story about a month late. It is still worth reading.
Ananova also posted an update, by the way. They make no mention of the two imported males from the earlier story, so I guess that at least the experiment didn't backfire.
Ananova also posted an update, by the way. They make no mention of the two imported males from the earlier story, so I guess that at least the experiment didn't backfire.
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Confession: I Am A Capitalist Pig
Ayn Rand: If capitalists are as evil as you say they are, what magic faculty endows a politician with virtue? If men who deal with others by means of voluntary trade are selfish monsters, how does... the right to force others transform a man into a selfless public servant?
Some say making a profit, especially a hefty profit, is selfish or greedy. You know what? I don't want to be famous, I don't want to be fabulously wealthy, but if I were a biddy-biddy rich...!
Let us assume making money through sales is selfish. Shame, then, on people who buy in order to obtain the goods/services they desire, even those desiring things for others. Further, consumers usually want to profit more from this exchange, the same as businesses. Most people like good deals! Companies grow or fold on the basis of whether a sufficient number of buyers regard their benefits from goods/services as equal to, or greater than, their cost. This is an open trade system. The only exceptions are businesses that cheat the system (à la Enron, though the system caught up with them), and consumers that do the same (stop, thief!).
I do hear how capitalists are taking over the world... but maybe the Protestants are doing it... no, I mean the Jews... the Freemasons... Mormons... Muslims... oil barons... communists... Hollywood... Honestly, who is in charge here? A capitalist atheist?
The real disgrace concerning capitalism is how few anti-capitalist protesters realize that they wear products from globalized industries, or that those cameramen filming them work for mass-media corporations. I want to see consistency! I want to see them buck naked and breaking lenses! At least the athletic college students, please. And if Prince Charles can do enough to earn a couple of angry naked people, it stands to reason that those evil capitalists who work every day deserve lots of angrier, naked-er people.
Fair enough?
Some say making a profit, especially a hefty profit, is selfish or greedy. You know what? I don't want to be famous, I don't want to be fabulously wealthy, but if I were a biddy-biddy rich...!
Let us assume making money through sales is selfish. Shame, then, on people who buy in order to obtain the goods/services they desire, even those desiring things for others. Further, consumers usually want to profit more from this exchange, the same as businesses. Most people like good deals! Companies grow or fold on the basis of whether a sufficient number of buyers regard their benefits from goods/services as equal to, or greater than, their cost. This is an open trade system. The only exceptions are businesses that cheat the system (à la Enron, though the system caught up with them), and consumers that do the same (stop, thief!).
I do hear how capitalists are taking over the world... but maybe the Protestants are doing it... no, I mean the Jews... the Freemasons... Mormons... Muslims... oil barons... communists... Hollywood... Honestly, who is in charge here? A capitalist atheist?
The real disgrace concerning capitalism is how few anti-capitalist protesters realize that they wear products from globalized industries, or that those cameramen filming them work for mass-media corporations. I want to see consistency! I want to see them buck naked and breaking lenses! At least the athletic college students, please. And if Prince Charles can do enough to earn a couple of angry naked people, it stands to reason that those evil capitalists who work every day deserve lots of angrier, naked-er people.
Fair enough?
Moron... Err... More On Sgrena's Nonsense
Monday, March 07, 2005
Elton John Attacks!
Your suspicion that Sir Elton is in fact an intimidating warrior may prompt laughter at the office, but now there is proof. (Via Roger L. Simon)
Sunday, March 06, 2005
Flashing Jeffrey
On a lighter note, my favorite flash movie is probably "Ddautta". There is such a thing as 'Punk Romantic.'
I meant to link it on St. Valentine's Day, but this day will do.
I meant to link it on St. Valentine's Day, but this day will do.
Sgrena Is No Quattrocchi, Calipari
Apparently aware that the tragic death of Italian security agent Nicola Calipari undermines her triumphant homecoming, Giuliana Sgrena is shamelessly making the rounds in the news services. If nothing else, she sure can ride the coattails of a real Italian hero. Among the most fascinating displays is this BBC interview where Giuliana Sgrena raises some serious questions, albeit not the sort she probably had in mind...
And so they [became] aware that I was really working against the occupation and people were supporting me and so they told me: "We have seen that you are very appreciated in Italy". And that helped me to be freed.
Well, yeah. Supporting 'insurgents,' especially if you are willing to ally yourself with those who have no problems killing nobler Italians like Fabrizio Quattrocchi, probably does give your would-be killers pause. "Don't kill her yet! She's practically one of us! She could prove useful!"
And when I was freed it was the last of my problems which kind of negotiations were going on.
Perhaps if you had taken Mark Steyn's advice, you wouldn't have gotten yourself (or Nicola Calipari and the others) into this mess in the first place.
We were on our way to the airport when the tanks started to strike against us...
Tanks? And you are still alive? When you just said there was a "hail of bullets" the reason you were still alive could have been that America is filling Iraq with useless marksmen (all that ammunition and, despite being "no accident," the troops failed to kill everyone?) so you got lucky, but now not just one tank, but tanks... Bizarre.
We were not a hidden car. We were just a car on the road with lights and we were not running without any signal.
Why didn't the Italian government see to it that you were transported in an armored vehicle or had a military escort, by the way?
...We don't know what happened.
That much is clear.
Our car was destroyed.
Given the number of car bombs we see on the news, this supports the claim that U.S. troops were indeed serious about stopping what they perceived as a clear threat. Totaling the car is the most prudent move under such circumstances.
And then the driver got out and was shouting "we're Italian, we're Italian"
Stopping and explaining that beforehand was never an option? The Americans materialized out of thin air, guns ablaze! Even assuming everyone in the car was ignorant about past accidents in Iraq, since when has blindly trusting bureaucracy with one's safety been an intelligent move? And under conditions like we see in Iraq?
I can't say it was deliberate because we can't say if there was a lack of information.
Yet you feel comfortable saying, "The United States doesn't approve of this (ransom) policy and so they try to stop it in any way possible"--suggesting, without empirical evidence or experience, that you were the target of a U.S. assassination attempt. We are supposed to consider you a credible witness?
But also a lack of information in this case is [their] responsibility because you are in a war field and you have the responsibility to pass immediately any information.
Whose responsibility? Did the Italians fail to call? Did the Americans fail to call? Were there other circumstance that mean no-one is really to blame? Are the soldiers who actually fired upon the car responsible? Perhaps someone should have made a better effort to locate a specific piece of information he was not aware that he was supposed to know? (Curse those Americans and their feeble psychic abilities!)
Nicola Calipari gave his service to Italy, and gave his life to save Giuliana Sgrena. One brave way for Sgrena to honor his sacrifice would be to recognize the high value of his service, including his work and that of his compatriots in Iraq that she so despised. Some principles are worth more than individual personalities. Calipari knew this. Learn from him, Sgrena. And fast.
And so they [became] aware that I was really working against the occupation and people were supporting me and so they told me: "We have seen that you are very appreciated in Italy". And that helped me to be freed.
Well, yeah. Supporting 'insurgents,' especially if you are willing to ally yourself with those who have no problems killing nobler Italians like Fabrizio Quattrocchi, probably does give your would-be killers pause. "Don't kill her yet! She's practically one of us! She could prove useful!"
And when I was freed it was the last of my problems which kind of negotiations were going on.
Perhaps if you had taken Mark Steyn's advice, you wouldn't have gotten yourself (or Nicola Calipari and the others) into this mess in the first place.
We were on our way to the airport when the tanks started to strike against us...
Tanks? And you are still alive? When you just said there was a "hail of bullets" the reason you were still alive could have been that America is filling Iraq with useless marksmen (all that ammunition and, despite being "no accident," the troops failed to kill everyone?) so you got lucky, but now not just one tank, but tanks... Bizarre.
We were not a hidden car. We were just a car on the road with lights and we were not running without any signal.
Why didn't the Italian government see to it that you were transported in an armored vehicle or had a military escort, by the way?
...We don't know what happened.
That much is clear.
Our car was destroyed.
Given the number of car bombs we see on the news, this supports the claim that U.S. troops were indeed serious about stopping what they perceived as a clear threat. Totaling the car is the most prudent move under such circumstances.
And then the driver got out and was shouting "we're Italian, we're Italian"
Stopping and explaining that beforehand was never an option? The Americans materialized out of thin air, guns ablaze! Even assuming everyone in the car was ignorant about past accidents in Iraq, since when has blindly trusting bureaucracy with one's safety been an intelligent move? And under conditions like we see in Iraq?
I can't say it was deliberate because we can't say if there was a lack of information.
Yet you feel comfortable saying, "The United States doesn't approve of this (ransom) policy and so they try to stop it in any way possible"--suggesting, without empirical evidence or experience, that you were the target of a U.S. assassination attempt. We are supposed to consider you a credible witness?
But also a lack of information in this case is [their] responsibility because you are in a war field and you have the responsibility to pass immediately any information.
Whose responsibility? Did the Italians fail to call? Did the Americans fail to call? Were there other circumstance that mean no-one is really to blame? Are the soldiers who actually fired upon the car responsible? Perhaps someone should have made a better effort to locate a specific piece of information he was not aware that he was supposed to know? (Curse those Americans and their feeble psychic abilities!)
Nicola Calipari gave his service to Italy, and gave his life to save Giuliana Sgrena. One brave way for Sgrena to honor his sacrifice would be to recognize the high value of his service, including his work and that of his compatriots in Iraq that she so despised. Some principles are worth more than individual personalities. Calipari knew this. Learn from him, Sgrena. And fast.
Iranian Pups
Dictators can be so cute.
I guess it's time for Glenn Reynolds to warm up his special blender.
Update: Darn, I was beaten to the punch. So much for my 15 minutes of Instapundit fame.
I guess it's time for Glenn Reynolds to warm up his special blender.
Update: Darn, I was beaten to the punch. So much for my 15 minutes of Instapundit fame.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Flow From The Pen, Bow And Brush
There really are few things I love more than making a personal discovery. Being behind-the-times when it comes to popular music, I only just now stumbled across a gem from rock group Sixpence None the Richer, titled 'Melody of You,' with music and lyrics by guitarist Matt Slocum. While not as ubiquitous as 'Kiss Me' or their cover of 'There She Goes' (or 'Dancing Queen'), it was apparently no trade secret a couple of years ago. Why did no-one tell me about this? The chorus is straightforward...
This is my call, I belong to you
This is my call, to sing the melodies of you
This is my call, I can do nothing else
I can do nothing else
But look at this first stanza...
You're a painting with symbols deep
A symphony, soft as it shifts from dark beneath
A poem that flows, caressing my skin
In all of these things you reside and I
Want to flow from the pen, bow and brush
Then paper and string and canvas touch
With ink and the air to dust your light
From morning 'til the black of night
And the second...
You're the scent of an unfound bloom
A simple tune I only write variations to
A drink that will knock me down on the floor
A key that will unlock the door where I
Hear a voice sing familiar themes
Then beckons me weave notes in between
A bow and a string, a tap and glass
You pour me 'til the day has passed
This isn't pop lyricism. It is poetry.
Plus, the music is charming.
And where does the band's name come from? My favorite author, C.S. Lewis, in a passage from "Mere Christianity":
Every faculty you have, your power of thinking or of moving your limbs from moment to moment, is given to you by God. If you devoted every moment of your whole life exclusively to His service you could not give Him anything that was not in a sense His own already. So that when we talk of a man doing anything for God or giving anything to God, I will tell you what it is really like. It is like a small child going to his father and saying, 'Daddy, give me sixpence to buy you a birthday present.' Of course, the father does, and he is pleased with the child's present. It is all very nice and proper, but only an idiot would think that the father is sixpence to the good on the transaction.
Sixpence None the Richer has another listener in Memphis.
This is my call, I belong to you
This is my call, to sing the melodies of you
This is my call, I can do nothing else
I can do nothing else
But look at this first stanza...
You're a painting with symbols deep
A symphony, soft as it shifts from dark beneath
A poem that flows, caressing my skin
In all of these things you reside and I
Want to flow from the pen, bow and brush
Then paper and string and canvas touch
With ink and the air to dust your light
From morning 'til the black of night
And the second...
You're the scent of an unfound bloom
A simple tune I only write variations to
A drink that will knock me down on the floor
A key that will unlock the door where I
Hear a voice sing familiar themes
Then beckons me weave notes in between
A bow and a string, a tap and glass
You pour me 'til the day has passed
This isn't pop lyricism. It is poetry.
Plus, the music is charming.
And where does the band's name come from? My favorite author, C.S. Lewis, in a passage from "Mere Christianity":
Every faculty you have, your power of thinking or of moving your limbs from moment to moment, is given to you by God. If you devoted every moment of your whole life exclusively to His service you could not give Him anything that was not in a sense His own already. So that when we talk of a man doing anything for God or giving anything to God, I will tell you what it is really like. It is like a small child going to his father and saying, 'Daddy, give me sixpence to buy you a birthday present.' Of course, the father does, and he is pleased with the child's present. It is all very nice and proper, but only an idiot would think that the father is sixpence to the good on the transaction.
Sixpence None the Richer has another listener in Memphis.
"Hello." Such A Simple Way To Start A Love Affair
Hello, I'm back! I feel like writing again, which means I will be writing here again. Much like I am now. (Amazing coincidence, yes?)
And what prompted this sudden urge to write? Why, a blogger made the sort of discovery that could shred the fabric of society...
There are penises on U.S. coins. (Via Wonkette)
Bush must still be courting the South Park Republicans!
This is almost as surreal as the list of cusswords from Congress. But not quite.
And what prompted this sudden urge to write? Why, a blogger made the sort of discovery that could shred the fabric of society...
There are penises on U.S. coins. (Via Wonkette)
Bush must still be courting the South Park Republicans!
This is almost as surreal as the list of cusswords from Congress. But not quite.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
